Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
by
XiYu
A Research Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Master of Science Degree
In
Applied Psychology
Dr. Katherine Lui
~Dr. Laura Barron
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
August, 2010
2
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI
Author:
Yu, Xi
Title:
Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and
Employee Loyalty
Graduate Degree / Major:
MS Applied Psychology
Research Adviser:
Renee Surdick, Ph.D.
Month / Year:
August, 2010
Number of Pages:
69
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6 th edition
Abstract
The XYZ Company in China was exploring potential problems between unsatisfied
employees and their supervisors. It appeared that a low level of loyalty exits between employees
and their supervisors, due to supervisor's leadership behaviors. This study examined the
relationship between supervisor's leadership styles and employee loyalty to supervisor among a
sample of employees at the XYZ Company in China. This paper explored the correlations
between supervisor's leadership styles and employee loyalty to supervisor. It also explored the
prediction of supervisor's leadership styles on employee loyalty. The purpose of this study was
to provide recommendations for leadership improvement and organizational development.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire with 45 items was used in this study to measure
3
supervisor's leadership styles and behaviors. Loyalty to Supervisor Scale with 17 items was used
to measure employee loyalty to supervisor. The participants of this study consisted of 65
employees who were working with different supervisors separately in nine different working
groups in the XYZ Company. The results indicated that the variables were correlated with each
other differed in magnitude and direction. The results also showed that transformational
leadership and idealized attributes positively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor, but
passive or avoidant leadership negatively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor.
4
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin Stout
Menomonie, WI
Acknowledgments
There are many people that I would like to acknowledge for their support and
encouragement for me. Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Renee Surdick, and my committee
members, Dr. Lui and Dr. Barron, for their constant commitments to assisting me in my
academic endeavors. Their expertise and knowledge are greatly appreciated. Secondly, I would
like to thank all of the instructors in Master of Science-Applied Psychology program for their
commitments and sincerity in their instruction. Their supports and helps for me, an international
student, are greatly appreciated. Thirdly, I would like to thank the participants of this study, who
helped me achieve the success of this study. Finally, I would like to thank my family, my cohorts
in this program, and my friends for their constant encouragement and supports during the
demanding but happy process of my study for Master Degree.
Thank you all sincerely!
5
Table of Contents
Abstract .............. ..... ... ....... ... ............ ...... ...... .... ....... .. .. .... ........... ... ......... ... ............... ..... .. ... ...... ........ 2
List of Tables .. ... .............. ... ..... ........... ............. ... ... .. ... ......... .. ... .. ... .. ................. .. .... ... ...... ..... ...... ... ..7
Chapter I: Introduction ......................................................... .. ......... ... .......... .... ..... .. .. ..... ....... .... .. ..... 8
Statement of the Problem .... ..... ....... ... .... ......... ... ...................... .... ....................... .. ............... 8
Purpose of the Study ... ........... ....... ..... ....................... .. ..... .. ......................... .. ....... .......... ... ...9
Research Questions ... .............. ... ... .. ...... .............................. .. ........... .. ... ........ .. ............ .. ....... 9
Assumptions of the Study .. .. ... ....................... ... ..... ...... .. ........ .. ..... .......... .......... ... ..... ........... 9
Definition of Terms .... ..... ........ ..... ... .... ..... .... .............. ........ ... ............. .. ......................... .. .. . 10
Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................... 11
Methodology .. .................. ... .. .. .................................................. ... ....................... ... ........... . 12
Chapter II: Literature Review .. ... ......... .. ... ...... ... .............. ............ ....... .......... .. ...... ...... .. .. ......... ...... 13
Conceptual Background ............ ......... ............ ...... ............................................................ .. 13
Theory and Previous Studies .. ... ... ............... .. ...................................................... ..... ........ . 18
Chapter III: Methodology ..... ........ ........ .. ........... ... ... ........ ... ............. .......... ...... ... .. ...... ................ ... 26
Subject Selection and Description .................................................................................... .26
Instrumentation .. ........... .. ........... .. ............... ... ... .... .............................. .... ......... ..... ............ .26
Data Collection Procedures ....... .. ........... .. .. ..... .. ....... ...... .. .............. .. .... .... ...... ..... ........ ... .... 30
Data Analysis ...... ... ............................................................................................................ 31
Limitations ..... .......... ... ........ ... .. ..... ........... ........ .... ... ..................... ... ....... ......... .... .... ........... 31
Summary ................. ... ..... .... .... ......... ...... ..... ................... ...... ... ................. ...... ..... ....... ........ 32
Chapter IV: Results ..... ...... ..................... .. .... .... ......... ... ... .... ... ... .... ........ .. ....... .... ..... ............. ......... .33
6
Descriptive Analysis .......................................................................................................... 33
Correlation Analysis .......................................................................................................... 35
Regression Analysis ........................................................................................................... 42
Chapter V: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 46
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 46
Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 48
Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 49
Future Research ................................................................................................................. 52
References ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter ................................................................................................. 58
Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ...................................................................... 59
Appendix C: Loyalty to Supervisor Scale ..................................................................................... 62
Appendix 0: Institutional Review Board Form ............................................................................. 64
Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Approval ....................................................................... 69
7
List of Tables
Table 1: Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Study Variables (N =
65) ......................................................... . ................ .......................... 34
Table 2: Correlation Coefficients for the Study
Variables ............... . ........................................................ . .................... 36
Table 3: Regression Analysis of the Effects of Leadership Factors on Loyalty to
Supervisor. ..... .. ............................... . ................................ . . . ................ 43
8
Chapter I: Introduction
Building effective relationship between supervisors and employees holds potential for
strengthening the commitment to the workplace and specifically its leadership. This study
explored the relationship between supervisor's leadership style and employee loyalty among a
group of employees at the XYZ Company in China. Specifically, the research examined the
cOlTelations between supervisor's leadership styles and employee loyalty, and how specific
leadership behaviors would predict employee's loyalty to their supervisors. The results of the
study were intended to provide insights on how to increase supervisor's leadership skills in order
to improve employee loyalty and build a harmony within the working environment.
Statement of the Problem
Based on the information presented to the researcher, the management of the XYZ
Company was facing a managerial problem of unsatisfied relations between employees and their
supervisors. According to the statements of Manager of Marketing Department at the XYZ
Company (personal communication, Feburary 18, 2010), it indicated that some employees did
not want to continue working with the current supervisor in the working group, but they did not
consider leaving the company. The potential problem was that employees reported their
dissatisfaction with their relationships with the supervisor possibly due to the leadership
behaviors. Employees might not be adapting to certain leadership behaviors resulting in low
level of employee loyalty to their supervisor. This problem might have influenced the employee's
performance, working productivity and the working environment in the company.
The supervisor is very important for employees, because they often interact with employees
9
on a daily basis and conduct the procedures of organizational activities with the followers (Chen,
Tsui, & Farh, 2002) . This study focused on the leadership behaviors of the supervisors, explored
its relationship with employee loyalty, and provided recommendations for plans and strategies of
improving supervisor's leadership skills.
Purpose of the Study
This study explored the relationship between supervisor's leadership styles and employee
loyalty in order to provide some recommendations for the company's organizational
development and leadership skills improvement related to employees. This study examined the
extent of correlations between employee loyalty and supervisor's leadership styles for improving
supervisor's leadership skills and the relationships between employees and supervisors. This
study was critical to the success of human resources management, employee performance
improvement, and organizational development.
Research Questions
The first research question of this study was how leadership style and loyalty to supervisor
correlated with each other, including the correlations between specific behavioral factors of each
leadership style and specific dimensions of loyalty to supervisor.
The second research question of this study was how leadership styles and factors predicted
employee loyalty to supervisor for providing recommendations on strategies of leadership
improvements at the XYZ Company.
Assumptions of the Study
In this study, the relationships between the supervisor's leadership and employee loyalty
10
were explored. Specifically, it examined how leadership styles and specific leadership behaviors
predicted employee loyalty to supervisors and specific dimensions of loyalty. The results of this
study summarized effective strategies of improving leadership skills to improve the relationships
between supervisors and their employees. The hypotheses of this study were presented below.
Hi (a): There is a positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee
loyalty to supervisor, specifically with the dimension of employee's attachment to supervisor.
H2 (a): Contingent reward and intellectual stimulation behaviors positively cOlTelate with
employee's attachment to supervisor.
H2 (b) : Active management-by-exception and the passive management-by-exception
negatively correlate with employee's attachment to supervisor.
H2 (c): Individual consideration positively correlates with employee loyalty to supervisor.
H3: There is a positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee's
internalization of supervisor's values.
H4 (a): Idealized influence and contingent reward positively predict employee loyalty to
supervisors.
H4 (b): Active management-by-exception and Laissez-faire behaviors negatively predict
employee loyalty to supervisor.
Definition of Terms
Transformational leadership. It is a leadership that is defined as creating positive and
challengeable changes among the followers (Bass, 1985). A transformational leader focuses on
making followers to help each other, to take care of each other, to be harmonious and
II
encouraging, and to view the organization as a whole (Bass, 1985).
Transactional leadership. It describes the leaders who focus on a series of transactions of
daily practice in work flow (Bass, 1985). The transactional leaders emphasize on building a
relationship with followers on exchanging benefits, and clarifying the rewards and punishments
with a sense of responsibility to achieve accomplishments (Bass, 1985).
Passive / Avoidant leadership. It describes the leaders who avoid clarifying performance
expectations, specifying agreements and deviations, and stating work goals and requirements to
be achieved by followers (Bass, 1985).
Employee loyalty to supervisor. It describes the degree to which the employees or
followers are committed for their work and their supervisors, including realizing their personal
responsibility for the work and their intentions of seeking new job opportunities (Coughlan,
2005).
Supervisors. In this study, supervisors are the people who are responsible for the working
groups in Marketing Department in the organization and have seven or eight employees working
for them in the group.
Limitations of the Study
One of the main limitations of the study was how culture impacted the relationship between
supervisors and employees. The study was conducted in China, so it might be important to
consider the values and beliefs of Chinese culture and how it impacted the roles of individuals
within the workplace. The results of this current study were possibly different from previous
research that was conducted under the background of other cultures.
12
Another main limitation was the employees' individual factors, for example, gender, age,
personality, and personal preferences. These factors might affect employee's leadership
perceptions on their supervisors.
Methodology
The participants in this study were 65 employees who were working with different
supervisors separately in different working groups in the Marketing Department at the XYZ
Company in China.
Multifactor Leadership QuestiOImaire (MLQ), 3rd edition (Bass & Avolio, 2004), with 45
items was used to measure supervisors' leadership styles and behaviors. MLQ measures
individual leadership styles ranging from passive or avoidant leadership, to transactional
leadership, and to transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Loyalty to Supervisor
Scale (LS) (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002) with 17 items was used to measure employee loyalty to
their supervisor. It measures the five dimensions of loyalty to supervisor, including dedication to
supervisor, extra effort for supervisor, attachment to supervisor, identification with supervisor,
and internalization of supervisor's values (Chen et al., 2002).
Regarding to the data collection procedures, each participant received an email package
including surveys, informed consent form, and instructions for surveys. They were asked to
complete the documents followed by the instructions. Confidentiality was strictly maintained and
the data collected was only used for this study. Regarding to the data analysis approach, SPSS
was used to explore the relationships between variables and the predictors for employee loyalty
to their supervisors. Correlation analysis and mUltiple regression analysis were explored . As the
13
results, the correlations between variables and predictions of supervisor's leadership on
employee loyalty were presented.
14
Chapter II: Literature Review
Conceptual Background
Regarding to leadership, a full range model of leadership was developed to measure the
leadership styles (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The full range model provided the basis for assessing
leadership behaviors with a comprehensive vision (Kleinman, 2004). The full range model
consisted of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and passive or avoidant
leadership, including specific behaviors under each category (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Transformational leadership was firstly developed by Burns in 1978. Transformational
leaders would encourage followers to make great changes personally and also generated great
changes and challenges for the organization (Burns, 1978). Bass (1985) proposed a broader
vision of transformational leadership, which was to motivate followers to produce changes
beyond expectations.
Transformational leadership behaviors included the following specific aspects (Bass &
Avolio, 2004).
Idealized attributes leadership (IA) describes the leaders who instill pride in associates who
worked for them and go beyond self-interest to do good for the group (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Idealized behaviors leadership (IB) describes the leaders who state about their most
important values and beliefs, and specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
(Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Inspirational motivation leadership (lM) describes the leaders who motivate the followers
by providing demands and challenges to their followers' work (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
15
Intellectual stimulation leadership (IS) describes the leaders who stimulate their followers'
effort and encourage them to be creative by challenging using questions, assumptions, reframed
problems, and presenting old situations in new ways (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Intellectual
stimulation leadership focuses on how followers are encouraged to think about former problems
in creative ways. Under this leadership, the followers are able to be exposed to a broader vision
of the problems, be aware of innovation when problem solving, and generate creative solutions
for the problems (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Individual Consideration leadership (IC) describes the leaders who pay more attentions to
each individual's needs for accomplishments of jobs and their personal growth (Bass & Avolio,
2004). Under this leadership, the leaders or supervisors are more likely to act as a coach or a
mentor (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Individual consideration describes how the leader instills power
by acting as a coach or a mentor and holds a people-oriented vision and attitude for the
follower's development (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
The characteristics of transformational leadership include increasing confidence and
motivation, clarifying follower's directions of work in obtaining organizational goals, sharing
beliefs and benefits, and being open to employee's feedback and suggestions (Bums, 1978). The
theory of transformational leadership presented that it is related to the effects on job satisfaction
and organizational commitment (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders emphasize on enhancing
the motivation and performance for the followers. The followers under transformational
leadership would feel loyalty, trust, and respect towards their leaders and they would make more
efforts than they are expected for the leaders or supervisor when working (Bass, 1985).
16
Specifically, transformational leaders are viewed as who have powers on employees with
individual considerations, inspirations, intellectually stimulations, and personal development
(Bass & Avolio, 2004). Transformational leadership shows strong influences on relationship
between leaders and followers that instills power for achieving performance objectives and work
goals (Bums, 1978).
Transactional leadership was firstly proposed by Burns in 1978, which focuses on the
exchanging benefits to satisfy the needs of both side of followers and leaders. Bass (1985)
proposed a refined vision of transactional leadership, which emphasizes rewards exchanging on a
basis of leader-follower relationships.
Transactional leadership focuses more on daily practices of work transactions (Burns, 1978).
Transactional leaders set up working goals and agreements with the followers in order to achieve
target objectives (Bass & Avolio, 2004). They also clarify the compensation and rewards that
would be offered to the followers when they succeed to accomplish certain tasks (Bass & Avolio,
2004).
Transactional leadership is labeled as the following specific behaviors (Bass & Avolio,
2004).
Contingent reward leadership (CR) refers to the leadership behavior of clarifying
expectations from the followers (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Under this leadership, followers are
offered with recognitions and rewards when working goals are obtained on a basis of pay
exchanging (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Active management-by-exception leadership (MBEA) describes the leaders who specify the
17
detailed requirements and standards for work flow, and the punishments that would be executed
when the followers perform ineffectively and go beyond the standards (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Passive or avoidant leadership describes the leaders who avoid getting involved in the work
progress and decision making (Bass & Avolio, 2004). They would not like to clarify agreements
and expectations of work for the followers . Goals and standards of tasks are not clearly presented
for the followers (Bass &
Avolio, 2004). This leadership style consists of passive
management-by-exception leadership and Laissez-faire leadership as presented below.
Passive management-by-exception leadership (MBEP) refers to the leaders who avoid being
involved until the problems become more serious and wait with no actions until things go wrong
before
taking
actions
(Bass
&
Avolio,
2004).
Leaders
who
display
passive
management-by-exception will not interfere into problem solving until followers suffer from
certain serious deviations or wrongs (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Laissez-faire leadership (LF) refers to the leaders who avoid interfering when serious issues
arise (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Bass and Avolio (2004) also describe this leadership as
non-leadership.
Employee loyalty to supervisor is a concept that describes the degree to which the
employees or followers are committed for their work and their supervisors, including realizing
their personal responsibility for the work and whether they tend to look for new job opportunities
or not (Coughlan, 2005).
Chen, Tusi, and Farh (2002) forwarded that loyalty to supervisor refers to the strength of a
follower's sense of identification, willingness to make extra efforts, attachment and dedication to
18
supervisors, and internalization to a supervisor's beliefs. Specifically, Chen et a!. (2002)
proposed that the concept of loyalty to supervisor can be labeled and interpreted as the following
specific dimensions.
Dedication to supervisor (Ded.) refers to a follower's willingness to dedicate to the
supervisor and to protect the supervisor even their personal benefits are reduced (Chen et a!.,
2002).
Extra effort for supervisor (Effort) indicates the follower's willingness to make more efforts
for the supervisor beyond expectations (Chen et a!., 2002).
Attachment to supervisor (Attach.) refers to a follower's desire and intention to follow the
supervisor, and their intention of continuing working with the supervisor or leaving (Chen et a!.,
2002).
Identification with supervisor (Iden.) refers to the follower's sense of pride of being a
follower of the supervisor and their respects for the accomplishments of the supervisor (Chen et
a!., 2002).
Internalization of supervisor's values (Intern.) refers to the level of matching of values and
beliefs between the followers and the supervisors (Chen et a!., 2002).
Theory and Previous Studies
A meta-analysis was conducted to examIne the predictors of employee loyalty and
satisfaction. The predictors were the economic and individual factors, the job factors, and the
work environment factors (Karsh, Booske, & Sainfort, 2005). The work environment factors
included supervisory relationship, leadership, stress advancement opportunity and participation
19
(Karsh et al., 2005). The work environment factors were significantly and positively associated
with employee loyalty and job satisfaction (Karsh et al., 2005).
A review of previous research suggested that the potential factors that might influence
employee loyalty focused on three areas, including personal characteristics of the individual,
group and organization efforts, and characteristics of other community members (Coughlan,
2005). Supervisor's leadership was one aspect of the characteristics of other community
members who were often interacting with the employees. In daily work, leaders interacted with
employees and often behaved with each other (Kleinman, 2004). Leadership styles would
directly improve followers' loyalty to supervisors (Kleinman, 2004).
From the evidence above, it indicated that the close association between supervisor's
leadership styles and employee loyalty to supervisor.
Based on the concept of attachment to supervisor proposed above, which was one of the
dimensions of employee loyalty to supervisor, the attachment to supervisor referred to the
willingness of employee to work with the supervisors and their retentions or intentions of staying
with the job and their supervisor (Chen, et al., 2002). Effective leadership was correlated with
greater work satisfaction and retentions from employees towards the supervisors (Shader et al.,
2001). Leadership was an important influencing component on employee's attachment to the
supervisors and organization (Ribelin, 2003).
Based on the research on Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, it showed that
transformational leadership was positively correlated with personal efficacy, employee job
satisfaction, beliefs of work, and organizational commitment in the collectivistic cultures (Bass
20
& Avolio, 2004).
Many previous studies focused on the relationship between leadership styles and employees
retention. Volk and Lucas (1991) firstly demonstrated that the leadership style was the only
predictor of employee's retention and explained 32% of the variance in turnover. Effective
leadership styles were closely correlated with employee job satisfaction and retention (Kleinman,
2004). Effective leadership was described as a comprehensive component influencing retention,
and was viewed as an important factor of retention analysis and recruitment strategies (Kleinman,
2004).
Transformational leadership generated greater commitment
In
followers and greater
employee satisfaction and effectiveness than transactional leadership (Bass, 1998). The leaders
of transformational leadership were able to share visions of the future of the organization and
encourage innovations when problem solving (Bass & Aviolo, 2004). Conversely, transactional
leaders focused on day-to-day operations of exchanging rewards on the basis of working
performance (Burns, 1978).
Past research suggested that transformational leadership was one of the most important
factors to control employee's retention (Bass, 1985). The influences of transformational
leadership on retention emphasized that effective leader behaviors could improve follower 's
positive attitudes and psychological attachment to the leaders. Transformational leaders also
could stimulate followers' sense of social identification by encouraging them to internalize the
organizational values and the beliefs of leaders (Bass, 1998).
Silvelihorne and Wang (2001) conducted a study on the relationships between leadership
21
styles and employee productivity. Employee productivity could be described form aspects of
turnover, retention, profitability, quality of employee performance, and products produced
(Silverthorne & Wang, 200 I). There was close associations between the employee productivity
factors and leadership styles.
From what previous research showed above, hypothesis could be assumed that there is a
significant and positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee loyalty to
supervisor, especially with the dimension of employee's attachment to supervisor.
Although the positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee loyalty
were explored, different specific leadership behaviors had different effects on employee's loyalty
to supervisor, and different associations with different dimension within employee loyalty to
supervisor. Although there was a positive correlation between transformational leadership and
employee attachment to supervisor, transformational leadership and transactional leadership had
been both viewed as effective and positive forms of leadership styles (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Celia in transactional leadership factors would influence on employee loyalty and employee job
satisfaction. It was also not clear which specific leadership behaviors influenced most to
employee job satisfaction or loyalty (Kleinman, 2004). Some previous studies offered evidence
regarding of the influence of specific leadership behaviors on employee loyalty and job
satisfaction.
Kleinman (2004) conducted a research to explore the relationship between leadership
behaviors and staff nurse retention. The results showed that active management-by-exception of
transactional leadership was negatively associated with staff nurse retention (Kleinman, 2004).
22
Bass and Avolio (2004) described contingent reward as an effective leadership form for
motivating followers. Under the leadership of contingent reward, the leaders and the followers
focused on what they need to achieve and the rewards that the followers would obtain when
completing the work goals (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Contingent reward leadership behaviors
improved employee's psychological attachment and organizational commitment by motivating
employees to engage in challenging themselves during the work (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Nguni , Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) used an experiment to examine the effects of
transformational and transactional leadership on teacher's job satisfaction and commitment in a
developing country. They collected the data on teacher's intentions of leaving the job and their
satisfaction level on managerial leadership (Nguni et aI., 2006). The analysis showed that the
transformational and transactional factors explained 33% of the variance in job satisfaction
(Nguni et aI. , 2006). Specifically, intellectual stimulation and contingent reward were positively
related to staff's attachment to their leaders (Nguni et aI., 2006).
There was an experiment conducted by Chen, Beck, and Amos (2005) to explore the
relationships between leadership styles and employee's intentions to leave their supervisors. The
results presented that employees were more willing to work with supervisors who practiced the
contingent reward
of transactional
leadership styles and
individual
consideration of
transformational leadership styles (Chen et aI. , 2005). There was a negative correlation between
passive management-by-exception behaviors and employee attachment to the supervisors (Chen
et aI., 2005).
From the previous research and studies, the assumed hypotheses could be that contingent
23
reward and intellectual stimulation behaviors were significantly positively correlated with
employee's attachment to supervisor; active management by exception and passive management
by exception behaviors were significantly negatively correlated to employee 's attachment to
supervisor; and individual consideration was positively associated with employee loyalty to
supervisor.
Previous research showed that the effects of transformational leadership on employees'
commitment and job satisfaction reflected a psychological linkage between employees and
supervisors (Levinson, 1965). The linkage between employees and supervisors for exchanging
process
could
be
demonstrated
m
transformational
leadership
(Levinson,
1965).
Transformational leadership could enhance the development of the linkage, and make the values
and beliefs of supervisors internalized to the employees (Gandz, 2007). Transformational leaders
could understand the values and beliefs of the followers, and followers would understand the
values of supervisors and took job responsibilities (Gandz, 2007).
From the implications of previous research, hypothesis could be assumed that there was a
significant
positive
correlation
between
transformational
leadership
and
employee's
internalization of supervisor's values.
Shieh, Mills, and Waltz (2001) conducted a research about academic leadership style
predictors for nursing faculty job satisfaction. The purpose of measuring job satisfaction was to
explore the nursing staff's retention and intentions of leaving. High level of turnover among the
targeted samples reflected the nursing faculty's dissatisfaction with their jobs and their nursing
dean's leadership styles (Shieh et aL, 2001). The results showed that idealized influence,
24
intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward leadership styles significantly and positively
predicted job satisfaction. At the meantime, active management-by-exception significantly and
negatively predicted job satisfaction (Shieh et aI., 2001).
According to Chen and Barron's study (2006), the findings indicated that nurSIng
employees in Taiwan were more satisfied with leaders who practiced the leadership style of
idealized attributes. The descriptive and cross-sectional study presented that idealized attributes
leadership significantly and positively predicted nursing faculty members' loyalty level, but the
Laissez-faire leadership style significantly and negatively predicted nursing faculty member's
loyalty level (Chen & Barron, 2006).
From the implications of previous research, hypotheses could be made that idealized
influence and contingent reward positively predicted employee's loyalty to supervisors, but
active management-by-exception and Laissez-faire behaviors negatively predicted employee
loyalty to supervisor.
Hofstede's (1997) proposed the dimensions of culture, including power distance,
collectivism versus individualism, femininity versus masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance.
Much previous research was conducted on the impact of culture on the relationships between
leaders and followers. Culture played a significant role in the interactions between supervisors
and employees (Hofstede, 1997). Culture differences could influence the follower's supervisory
commitment (Trompenaars, 1993). Collectivistic culture, which was the type of Chinese culture,
emphasized the responsibilities and supports in the group from in-group members (Hofstede,
1997). Effective leadership would improve the team cohesions among team members and
25
enhanced followers' loyalty to the leaders and the group (Chemers, 1997). In Chinese culture, the
relationship between leaders and followers emphasized the follower's loyalty to the supervisor
(Farh & Cheng, 2000).
Cultural characteristics had positive impacts on employees' loyalty to supervisor as stated in
literature. The Confucian traditions, which were the dominant thoughts in Chinese culture,
showed that the responsibilities and obligations were emphasized on loyalty for work and leaders
in the groups (Cheng, Jiang, & Riley, 2003). According the research conducted by Redding in
1990, supervision in Chinese culture was greater than that in the Western culture, because
Chinese culture thought highly in the associations between supervisor and followers. In Chinese
context, supervisory commitment played a significant role in the management practices.
26
Chapter III: Methodology
Daily leadership is an important factor to affect employee's loyalty and job satisfaction.
Practicing different leadership styles can influence the levels of employee's attachment to their
supervisors. In this chapter, it described participants' selection, instrumentations, data collection
procedures, data analysis, and limitations. Additionally, using the measure instruments, results of
positive leadership behaviors could be known for leadership development strategies.
Subject Selection and Description
The participants consisted of 65 employees who were working for supervisor separately in
different working groups at the XYZ Company in China.
In this company, working groups were established in the Marketing Department to build a
competitive working environment in order to improve productivity. There was one supervisor
who was responsible for each working group, and there were seven or eight employees working
for the supervisor in the group.
Instrumentation
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), 3rd edition, with 45 items was used to
measure supervisors' leadership styles. The MLQ is the most used measurement of leadership in
organizations, originally developed by Bass (1985) and refined by Bass and Avolio (2004) to
measure factors of leadership constructed as the full range leadership model.
This instrument is widely used by previous research to measure transformational and
transactional leadership styles. It measures a broad range of leadership types, and helps leaders
discover how they measure their own leadership styles and how they are measured from the eyes
27
of the people who they work with (Bass & Avolio, 2004). MLQ includes Leader Form and Rater
Form , so data could be collected on the leadership perceptions from both sides of supervisors and
employees. MLQ measures individual leadership styles ranging from passive leaders, to
transactional leaders, and to transformational leaders (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The full range MLQ
measures transformational leadership from specific aspects of idealized attributes, idealized
behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass
& Avolio, 2004) . It measures transactional leadership from aspects of contingent reward, active
management-by-exception (Bass & Avolio, 2004). It measures avoidant or passive leadership
from specific aspects of passive management-by-exception, and Laissez-faire leadership (Bass &
Avolio, 2004). It also measures outcome of leadership from the aspects of extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leadership.
The MLQ with 45 items was used to measure leadership styles and behaviors, anchored
from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Frequently, if not always). Corresponding to each specific leadership
behaviors, the participants were required to judge how frequently each statement fitted the
person they were describing. Specifically, there are 4 items measuring the sub scale of idealized
attributes, for example, participants were required to describe how frequently the supervisor they
were rating "Instills pride in me for being associated with him or her." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p.
106). There are 4 items measuring the subscale of idealized behaviors, for example, participants
were required to describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating "Emphasizes the
importance of having a collective sense of mission." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107). There are 4
items measuring the sub scale of inspirational motivation, for example, participants were required
28
to describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating "Talks enthusiastically about what
needs to be accomplished." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 106). There are 4 items measuring the
subscale of intellectual stimulation, for example, participants were required to describe how
frequently the supervisor they were rating "Re-examines critical assumptions to question
whether they are appropriate." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 106). There are 4 items measuring the
subscale of individual consideration, for example, participants were required to describe how
frequently the supervisor they were rating "Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and
aspirations from others." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107). There are 4 items measuring the
subscale of contingent reward, for example, participants were required to describe how
frequently the supervisor they were rating "Makes clear what one can expect to receive when
performance goals are achieved." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107). There are 4 items measuring
the subscale of active management-by-exception, for example, participants were required to
describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating "Focuses attention on ilTegularities,
mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 106). There are 4
items measuring the subscale of passive management-by-exception, for example, participants
were required to describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating "Demonstrates that
problems must become chronic before I take action." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107). There are 4
items measuring the subscale of Laissez-faire leadership, for example, participants were required
to describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating "Avoids getting involved when
important issues arise." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107). There are 3 items measuring the subscale
of extra effort, for example, participants were required to describe how frequently the supervisor
29
they were rating "Gets me to do more than I expected to do ." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107).
There are 4 items measuring the subscale of effectiveness, for example, participants were
required to describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating "Is effective in meeting
organizational requirements." (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107). There are 2 items measuring the
subscale of satisfaction, for example, participants were required to describe how frequently the
supervisor they were rating "Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying." (Avolio & Bass,
2004, p. 107; The alpha coefficients for total items and for each subscale range from .74 to .94).
Loyalty to Supervisor Scale (LS) (Chen et aI., 2002) with 17 items was used to measure
employee loyalty to their supervisor. The LS was created by Chen, Tsui, and Farh in 2002 for the
research on relationships between employee performance and loyalty to supervisor commitment
and organizational commitment. The authors used exploratory factors analyzed to examine the
structure of the scale (Chen et aI., 2002). The scale measures five factors or dimensions of
loyalty to supervisor, including dedication to supervisor, extra effort for supervisor, attachment to
supervisor, identification with supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values (Chen et aI.,
2002) .
Loyalty to Supervisor Scale (LS) was used to measure employee loyalty to their supervisor,
anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Corresponding to each dimension,
participants were required to present their agreement on each statement. Specifically, there are 4
items measuring the dimension of dedication to supervisor, for example, participants were
required to present their agreement on "When somebody speaks ill of my supervisor, I will
defend him or her immediately." (Chen et aI., 2002, p. 346; The alpha co efficient of this
30
dimension was .72). There are 3 items measuring the dimension of extra effort for supervisor, for
example, participants were required to present their agreement on "Even if my supervisor is not
present, I will try my best to do the job assigned by him or her well." (Chen et al., 2002, p. 346;
The alpha coefficient of this dimension was .83) . There are 4 items measuring the dimension of
attachment to supervisor, for example, participants were required to present their agreement on
"No matter whether it will benefit me or not, I will be willing to continue working under my
supervisor. " (Chen et al. , 2002, p. 346; The alpha coefficient of this dimension was .80). There
are 3 items measuring the dimension of identification with supervisor, for example, participants
were required to present their agreement on " When someone praises my supervisor, I take it as a
personal compliment." (Chen et aI., 2002, p. 346; The alpha coefficient of this dimension
was .71). There are 3 items measuring the dimension of internalization of supervisor 's values, for
example, participants were required to present their agreement on "My attachment to my
supervisor is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those represented by my
supervisor." (Chen et al., 2002, p. 346; The alpha coefficient of this dimension was .70).
Data Collection Procedures
This study was reviewed and approved by UW-Stout Institutional Review Board for the
Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB) . Participants received an email package
including the surveys of MLQ rater form and LS scale, informed consent form, and the
instructions for completing the documents. Participants were asked to consider participating this
research, and then sign the consent form if they would like to palticipate. They were requested to
print the surveys and complete them. After completing, they were required to scan all of the
31
documents as PDF documents and email me back. Confidentiality was strictly maintained in this
study. The target company was referred as the XYZ Company. The names of participates were
not presented on the surveys. Participates were encouraged the participants not to discuss their
answers with colleagues or others in order to increase the likelihood of independent observation.
The data collected was only used for this study. All the documents collected from the participants
were destroyed after this study.
Data Analysis. The Statistical Program for Social Sciences version 16.0 (SPSS) was used to
analyze the data to explore the relationships between the variables. The data outliers and missing
data were cleared. Data analysis approaches included correlation analysis and multiple regression
analysis. To assess the correlations between leadership styles and loyalty to supervisor,
correlation analysis was applied. To examine the prediction of leadership styles on loyalty to
supervisor, multiple regression analysis was applied. The results presented the correlations
between specific leadership behaviors and different loyalty dimensions, and how the predictors
ofleadership styles and behaviors affected and predicted employee's loyalty to supervisor.
Limitations
One of the limitations was that the employees and supervisors were asked to complete the
surveys individually without any supervision. In this way, some participants would be possible to
discuss the answers with other colleagues or co-workers, which may have affected the validity of
the survey responses.
The other limitation was the limited sample size. Limited conclusions and generalizations
could be made. Because the target participants were in a certain company and the purpose of this
32
study was to help the company solve the managerial problems, the appropriate participants were
limited. Generalization of this research topic was difficult to make to other fields. However, the
65 target participants were all the employees in Marketing Department, the results were very
reliable and valid for this study.
Summary
This chapter described about selection and description of participants. It described the
detailed information of the instrumentations used in this study, including Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire and Loyalty to Supervisor. It also introduced specific data collection procedures
and data analysis approaches. Limitations of data collection procedures were also presented in
this chapter.
33
Chapter IV: Results
In this study, the surveys of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Loyalty to
Supervisor Scale were given to 65 participates in the XYZ Company in China to examine the
relationships between supervisor's leadership styles and employee's loyalty to their supervisor,
and how the leadership styles affected and predicted employee loyalty. The return rate of the
survey was 100%. The results and implications of this study provided recommendations for the
XYZ Company to increase the supervisor's leadership skills in order to improve employee's
loyalty. Descriptive analysis, correlations, and regression analysis were used to explore the
predicted hypotheses.
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations of the scores of the employees' for all the variables in the
study were presented in Table 1.
From the Table 1, it indicated that mean scores of transformational leadership (M = 2.37),
transactional leadership (M
=
2.45) and each behavioral factor in it were above the midpoint of
2.00 on the rating scale. The mean scores of passive or avoidant leadership (M = 1.15) and each
behavioral factor were all below the midpoint of 2.00. Overall, supervisors' leadership on the
MLQ factor scales in XYZ Company produced a more positive profile of transformational and
transactional leadership than passive or avoidant leadership.
34
Table 1
Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Study Variables (N
Leadership Style
=
65)
M
SD
Transformational leadership
2.37
.51
Idealized attributes CIA)
2.56
.68
Idealized behaviors (lB)
2.31
.69
Inspirational motivation (1M)
2.57
.65
Intellectual stimulation (IS)
2.24
.63
Individual consideration (lC)
2.18
.67
2.45
.49
Contingent reward (CR)
2.49
.57
Active management-by-exception (MBEA)
2.42
.68
Passive / Avoidant leadership
l.15
.68
Passive management-by-exception (MBEP)
l.26
.84
Laissez-faire (LF)
l.03
.67
Loyalty Total
4.49
.96
Dedication (Ded.)
4.40
l.25
Extra effort (Effort)
5.96
.88
Attachment (Attach .)
3.95
l.35
Identification (lden.)
3.88
l.37
Internalization of val ues (Intern.)
4.27
l.38
Transactional leadership
In Table 1, it also showed that the mean scores of employees' general loyalty status to
supervisor were also above the midpoint of 4.00 (M
=
4.49) . Generally, employees thought
positively about the extent to which they experienced their loyalty to the supervisors. Regarding
the specific dimensions, the results showed that the mean scores of dedication (M = 4.40), extra
35
effoli (M = 5.96), and internalization (M = 4.27) were above the midpoint of 4.00, but the mean
scores of attachment (M = 3.95) and identification (M
=
3.88) were slightly below the midpoint
of 4.00. The mean score of extra effort was the highest among the dimensions. In addition, the
mean score of attachment to supervisor was below midpoint. It reflected the managerial problem
of the XYZ Company, which some employees in the working groups were not satisfied with their
supervisors and intended to leave their current working groups and transferred to another.
Correlation Analysis
The relations between the variables model were examined by means of Pearson correlation
analysis presented in Table 2 below.
Transformational leadership (M = 2.37, SD = .51) strongly and positively correlated with
employee's loyalty to supervisor (M= 4.49, SD
=
.96), r(63)
=
.584, P < .Ol. And also, there was
a positive correlation between transformational leadership (M = 2.37, SD = .51) and dedication to
supervisor (M = 4.40, SD
=
l.23), r(63) = .416, p < .Ol. There was a strong and positive
correlation between transformational leadership (M
=
2 .37, SD = .51) and attachment to
supervisor (M = 3.95, SD = 1.35), r(63) = .636, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between
transformational leadership (M = 2.37, SD = .51) and identification with supervisor (M = 3.88,
SD
=
1.37), r(63)
=
.359, p < .01. There was a strong and positive correlation between
transformational leadership (M
=
2.37, SD
=
.51) and internalization of the supervisor's values
(M = 4.27, SD = l.38), r(63) = .641, P < .Ol. However, there was no significant correlation
between transformational leadership (M= 2.37, SD
for supervisor, r(63) = .072, p > .05 .
= .51)
and extra effort (M= 5.96, SD
= .88)
36
Table 2
Correlation Coefficients for the Study Variables
Leadership Style
Ded.
Effort
Attach.
Iden.
Intern.
Loyalty
Transformational leadership .416 * *
.072
.636**
.359**
.641 **
.584**
IA
.502**
.198
.523 * *
.354**
.488**
.552**
IB
.261 *
.018
.481 * *
.309*
.533**
.445 * *
1M
.476**
.216
.550**
.396**
.513 * *
.576**
IS
.210
-.069
.482 **
.195
.466**
.365**
IC
.156
-.089
.424**
.128
.474**
.315 *
.035
.408**
.207
.509**
.373**
.457* *
.366**
.578**
.524**
.253*
.101
Transactional leadership
.188
CR
.385**
MBEA
-.051
.196
-.115
Passive / Avoidant leadership -.400** - .426**
.208
-.120
.019
-.207
-.182
- .326* *
MBEP
-.346**
-.310*
- .103
-.203
-.193
-.288*
LF
-.308**
-.477**
- .114
-.166
-.128
-.301*
*p < .05
**p<.Ol
Idealized attributes (M = 2.56, SD = .68) positively correlated with loyalty to supervisor (M
= 4.49, SD
=
.96),1'(63)
=
.552, p < .Ol. There was also a positive con-elation between idealized
attributes (M = 2.56, SD = .68) and dedication to supervisor (M = 4.40, SD = 1.23), r(63) = .502,
p < .0 l. There was a positive correlation between idealized attributes (M
=
2.56, SD
=
.68) and
37
attachment to supervisor (M = 3.95, SD = 1.35), r(63) = .523, P < .01. There was a positive
correlation with idealized attributes (M = 2.56, SD = .68) and identification with supervisor (M =
3.88, SD = 1.37), r(63) = .354, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between idealized
attributes (M = 2.56, SD = .68) and internalization of the supervisor's values (M = 4.27, SD =
1.38), r(63) = .488, p < .01, but there was no significant correlation between idealized attributes
(M= 2.56, SD = .68) and extra effOlis for supervisor (M= 5.96, SD = .88), r(63) = .198,p > .05 .
Idealized behaviors (M = 2.31, SD = .69) positively correlated with loyalty to supervisor (M.
= 4.49, SD = .96), r(63) = 445, p < .01. There was also a positive correlation between idealized
behaviors (M = 2.31, SD = .69) and dedication to supervisor (M = 4.40, SD = 1.23), r(63) = .261,
p < .05. There was a strong and positive correlation between idealized behaviors (M = 2.31, SD
= .69) and attachment to supervisor (M= 3.95, SD = 1.35), r(63) = .481,p < .01. There was a
positive correlation between idealized behaviors (M
=
2.31, SD
=
.69) and identification with
supervisor (M = 3.88, SD = 1.37), r(63) = .309, p < .05. There was a strong and positive
correlation between idealized behaviors (M = 2.31, SD = .69) and internalization of the
supervisor's values (M = 4.27, SD = 1.38), r(63) = .533, P < .01. However, there was no
significant correlation between idealized behaviors (M = 2.31, SD = .69) and extra effort for
supervisor (M= 5.96, SD = .88), r(63)
= .018,p > .05.
Inspirational motivation (M = 2.57, SD
=
.65) strongly and positively correlated with loyalty
to supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), r(63) = .576, P < .01. There was also a positive correlation
between inspirational motivation (M = 2.57, SD = .65) and dedication to supervisor (M = 4.40,
SD
=
1.23), r(63)
=
.476, p < .01. There was a strong and positive correlation between
38
inspirational motivation (M = 2.57, SD = .65) and attachment to supervisor (M = 3.95, SD =
1.35), r(63) = .550, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between inspirational motivation (M
= 2.57, SD = .65) and identification with supervisor (M = 3.88, SD = 1.37), r(63) = .396, p < .01.
There was a strong and positive correlation between inspirational motivation (M = 2.57, SD = .65)
and internalization of the supervisor's values (M = 4.27, SD = 1.38), r(63) = .513, p < .01.
However, there was no significant correlation between inspirational motivation (M = 2.57, SD
= .65) and extra effort with supervisor (M = 5.96, SD = .88), r(63) = .216, p > .05.
Intellectual stimulation (M = 2.24, SD = .63) strongly and positively correlated with loyalty
to supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), r(63) = .365, p < .01. There was also a positive correlation
between intellectual stimulation (M = 2.24, SD = .63) and attachment to supervisor (M = 3.95,
SD = 1.35), r(63) = .482, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between intellectual
stimulation (M = 2.24, SD = .63) and internalization of the supervisor's values (M = 4.27, SD
=
1.38), r(63) = .466, p < .01. However, there was no correlation between intellectual stimulation
and dedication to supervisor, intellectual stimulation and extra effort for supervisor, and
intellectual stimulation and identification with supervisor.
Individual consideration
U\1 =
2.18, SD = .67) positively correlated with loyalty to
supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), r(63) = .315, p < .05. There was also a positive correlation
between individual consideration (M = 2.18, SD = .67) and attachment to supervisor (M = 3.95,
SD = 1.35), r(63) = .424, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between individual
consideration (M= 2.18, SD = .67) and internalization of the supervisor's values (M= 4.27, SD =
1.38), r(63)
=
.408,p < .01. However, there was no correlation between individual consideration
39
and dedication to superVisor, individual consideration and extra effort for superVisor, and
individual consideration and identification with supervisor.
Transactional leadership (M = 2.45, SD = .49) positively correlated with loyalty to
supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), 1'(63) = .373, p < .01. There was also a positive correlation
between transactional leadership (M = 2.45, SD = .49) and attachment to supervisor (M = 3.95,
SD = 1.35), 1'(63)
=
.408, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between transactional
leadership (M = 2.45, SD = .49) and internalization of the supervisor's values (M = 4.27, SD
1.38), 1'(63)
=
=
.509, p < .01. However, there was no correlation between transactional leadership
and dedication to supervisor, individual consideration and extra effort for supervisor, and
individual consideration and identification with supervisor.
Contingent reward (M = 2.49, SD = .57) strongly and positively correlated with loyalty to
supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), 1'(63) = .524, p < .01. There was also a positive correlation
between contingent reward (M = 2.49, SD = .57) and dedication to supervisor (M = 4.40, SD
=
1.23),1'(63) = .385, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between contingent reward (M =
2.49, SD = .57) and attachment to supervisor (M= 3.95, SD
=
1.35),1'(63) = .457,p < .01. There
was a positive correlation with contingent reward (M = 2.49, SD
=
.57) and identification with
supervisor (M = 3.88, SD = 1.37),1'(63) = .336, p < .01. There was a positive correlation between
contingent reward (M= 2.49, SD = .57) and internalization of the supervisor's values (M= 4.27,
SD
=
1.38), 1'(63)
=
contingent reward (M
1'(63) = .196, p > .05.
.578, p < .01. However, there was no significant correlation between
=
2.49, SD = .57) and extra efforts for supervisor (M
=
5.96, SD = .88),
40
Active management-by-exception did not significantly correlate with loyalty to supervisor.
Specifically, there was no significant correlation between active management-by-exception and
all the dimensions of loyalty to supervisor, except internalization of supervisor 's values. active
management-by-exception (M = 2.42, SD = .68) positively correlated with internalization of
supervisor (M= 4.27, SD = 1.38), r(63) = .253,p < .05.
Passive or avoidant leadership (M = 1.15, SD = .68) strongly and negatively correlated with
loyalty to supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), r(63) = -.524, p < .01. There was also a negative
correlation between passive leadership (M = 1.15, SD
=
.68) and dedication to supervisor (M =
4.40, SD = 1.23), r(63) = -.400, p < .Ol. There was a negative correlation between passive
leadership (M = 1.15, SD = .68) and extra effort for supervisor (M = 5.96, SD = .88), r(63)
=
-.426, p < .01. However, there was no significant correlation between passive leadership and
attachment; there was no significant correlation between passive leadership and identification
with supervisor. There was no significant correlation between passive leadership and
internalization of supervisor's values.
Passive management-by-exception (M = 1.26, SD
of supervisor (M = 4.49, SD
=
l.23), r(63)
.84) negatively correlated with loyalty
= .96), r(63) = -.288, p < .05. There was also a negative correlation
between passive management-by-exception (M
(M = 4.40, SD
=
=
management-by-exception (M
=
1.26, SD
=
.84) and dedication to supervisor
-.346, p < .01. There was a negative correlation between passive
=
1.26, SD = .84) and extra effort for supervisor (M
=
5.96, SD
= .88), r(63) = -.310, p < .05. However, there was no significant correlation between passive
management-by-exception and attachment. There was also no significant correlation between
41
passive management-by-exception and identification with supervIsor. There was also no
significant correlation between passive management-by-exception and internalization of
supervisor's values.
Laissez-faire leadership (M
=
1.03, SD
=
.67) negatively correlated with loyalty of
supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), r(63) = -.301, P < .05. There was also a negative correlation
between Laissez-faire leadership (M = l.26, SD = .84) and dedication to supervisor (M = 4.40,
SD = l.23), r(63) = -.380, P < .0 l. There was a negative correlation between Laissez-faire
leadership (M
=
1.26, SD = .84) and extra effort for supervisor (M = 5.96, SD = .88), r(63)
=
-.477, P < .01. However, there was no significant correlation between Laissez-faire leadership
and attachment. There was no significant correlation between Laissez-faire leadership and
identification with supervisor. There was also no significant correlation between Laissez-faire
leadership and internalization of supervisor's values.
In a summary, the results of correlation analysis indicated that transformational leadership,
transactional leadership and passive leadership all significant correlated with loyalty to
supervisor, but they differed in the magnitude and direction of their influence on the outcome
variables.
Transformational leadership had strong and positive correlations with employee's general
loyalty to supervisor, and strong positive with all the five dimensions of loyalty except extra
eff0l1 for supervisor. The group of specific behaviors factors of transformational leadership
positively correlated with loyalty to supervisor, specifically with attaclunent to supervisor and
internalization of supervisor's values. As predicted, these results were consistent with the
42
hypothesis 1, 2 (c), 3 and parts of 2 (a) that intellectual stimulation positively con-elated with
employee's attachment to supervisor.
Transactional leadership had moderate and positive correlations with employee's loyalty to
supervisor, and positive con-elations with attachment to supervisor and internalization of
supervisor's values. Specifically, contingent reward and active management-by-exception also
had moderate con-elations with attachment to supervisor and internalization of supervisor's
values. This result supported parts of hypothesis 2 (a) and 2 (b), which contingent reward
positively
con-elated
with
employee's
attachment
to
supervisor
and
active
management-by-exception negatively correlated with employee's attachment to supervisor.
Passive or avoidant leadership had negative correlations with employee's loyalty to
supervisor, and negative con-elations with dedication to supervisor and extra effort for
supervisors. Specifically, the sub-factors of passive management-by-exception and Laissez-faire
were also negatively correlated with dedication and extra effort to supervisors. However, these
results did not support a part of hypothesis 2 (b) that passive management-by-exception
negatively correlated with employee's attachment.
Regression Analysis
Multiple regression analysis was used to examine how the three main leadership styles
predicted employee's loyalty to supervisor presented in Table 3 below.
43
Table 3
Regression Analysis of the Effects of Leadership Factors on Loyalty to Supervisor
Loyalty to Supervisor
B
SEB
~
1.247
.285
.665**
IA
.450
.182
.318*
IB
.202
.186
.145
1M
.398
.236
.269
IS
.169
.224
.110
IC
-.136
.217
-.094
-.326
.296
-.167
.143
.271
.084
-.278
-.160
-.196
-.313
.144
-.221 *
Leadership Style
Transformational leaders hi p
Transactional leadership
CR
MBEA
Passive / Avoidant leadership
MBEP
-.138
-.143
-.119
LF
-.123
-.182
-.085
*p < .05
**p < .01
In the results, they indicated that the predictors significantly predicted loyalty to supervisor
and explained a significant proportion of variance. 36.8% of variance in loyalty to supervisor
44
was accounted for by all the independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional
leadership and passive or avoidant leadership. R2 = .398, F(3, 61)
=
13.419, P < .01. The
Adjusted R2 is .368 .
The coefficients results showed that transformational leadership (M = 2.37, SD = .51) can
positively predict employee's loyalty to supervisor (M= 4.49, SD = .96), fJ = .665, t(61) = 4.376,
p < .01. When the supervisor performs more transformational leadership, employees' loyalty to
the supervisor will increase. The results also showed that passive or avoidant leadership (M =
1.15, SD = .68) can negatively predict employee's loyalty to supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96), fJ =
-.221, t(61) = -2 .171,p < .05. When the supervisor performs more passive leadership, employees'
loyalty to the supervisor will decrease. In addition, transactional leadership (M = 2.45, SD = .49)
cannot predict loyalty to supervisor (M = 4.49, SD = .96) significantly, fJ = -.167, t( 61) = -1.103,
p > .05.
Specifically, multiple regression analysis was also conducted on the relationships between
the specific leadership behaviors and loyalty to supervisor in order to see how the factors
predicted employee's loyalty. The predictors included idealized attributes, idealized behaviors,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, contingent reward,
active
management-by-exception,
passive
management-by-exception,
and
Laissez-faire
leadership.
The results showed that the predictors significantly predicted loyalty to supervisor and
explained a significant proportion of variance. 40.7% of variance in loyalty to supervisor was
accounted for by all the independent variables. R2 = .490, F(9, 55) = 5.878,p < .01. The Adjusted
45
R2 is .407.
From the coefficients results, they showed that idealized attributes (M = 2.56, SD
=
.68) can
positively predict employee's loyalty to supervisor (!v! = 4.49, SD = .96), fJ = .318, t(61) = 2.474,
p < .05. It indicated that when the supervisor performs more idealized attributes behaviors,
employees' loyalty to the supervisor will increase. However, the other predictors cannot
significantly predict employee's loyalty to supervisor.
In a summary, multiple regression analysis indicated that, transformational leadership
positively
predicted
employee
loyalty
to
superVIsor.
If
supervisors
perform
more
transformational leadership, the employees will have higher loyalty to the supervisor. Especially,
idealized attributes positively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor. As predicted, this result
supported a part of hypothesis 4 (a). Employees prefer to idealized attributes leadership
behaviors from their supervisor because it can increase their level of loyalty toward the
supervisor. But the results did not support the hypothesis of contingent reward predicting loyalty
to supervisor. For the other part of hypothesis 4 (a), which was that contingent reward positively
predicted loyalty to supervisor, was not supported in this current study. Plus, passive or avoidant
leadership negatively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor. Supervisor's passive or avoidant
leadership style will decrease employee's loyalty level. However, it did not support the
hypothesis that the specific factor of Laissez-faire leadership negatively predicted employee
loyalty to supervisor. In addition, the results did not support the other part of hypothesis 4 (b)
that active management-by-exception leadership style negatively predicted employee loyalty to
supervisor.
46
Chapter V: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between supervisor's
leadership styles and employee's loyalty to their supervisor, and the predictions of leadership
styles on loyalty to supervisor in order to provide managerial reconunendations for the
improvement of supervisor's leadership styles. Surveys were conducted in the XYZ Company in
China to collect data from a sample of employees who were working under supervisors in
different working groups. In previous chapters, previous research was reviewed, the
measurements were introduced, and results were presented from this particular sample. In this
chapter, it summarized conclusions of this study and provided reconunendations for this study
and the managerial problems.
Conclusions
Two main research questions guided the present study. From the results, they showed that
the relationships between leadership styles and loyalty to supervisor, including the relationships
between specific behavioral factors, and how the leadership behaviors predicted employee
loyalty to supervisor.
With regard to the first research question, which is the correlations between the factors, the
results showed that transformational leadership, transactional leadership and passive leadership
all significant correlated with loyalty to supervisor, but they differed in the magnitude and
direction of their influence on employee loyalty to supervisor. Transformational leadership had
strong and positive correlations with employee's general loyalty to supervisor, and strong
positive with all the five dimensions of loyalty except extra effort for supervisor. The group of
47
specific behaviors factors of transformational leadership positively correlated with attachment to
supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values. These results were consistent with my
hypothesis. Transactional leadership had moderate and positive correlations with employee's
loyalty to supervisor, and positive correlations with attachment to supervisor and internalization
of supervisor's values. Specifically, contingent reward and active management-by-exception also
had moderate correlations with attachment to supervisor and internalization of supervisor's
values. Passive or avoidant leadership had negative correlations with employee's loyalty to
supervisor, and negative correlations with dedication to supervisor and extra effort for
supervisors. Specifically, the sub-factors of passive management-by-exception and Laissez-faire
were also negatively correlated with dedication and extra effort to supervisors.
With regard to the second research question, which is how the leadership factors determine
and predicted employee's loyalty to supervisor, the results showed that transformational
leadership can positively predict loyalty to supervisor? If supervisors perform more
transformational leadership, the employees will have higher loyalty to the supervisor. Especially,
idealized attributes leadership behaviors can significantly and strongly predict loyalty to
supervisor. Contrarily, supervisor's passive or avoidant leadership style can negatively predict
employee's loyalty level.
Based on these analysis results, they suggested that supervisors in organizations need to use
a combination of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors, but not passive or
avoidant leadership. From the results, transformational leadership might have more effects on
employee's loyalty, job satisfaction and work performance, but both transformational and
48
transactionalleaderships are effective leadership styles.
The results of the current study suppOlied the intervention of developing collaborative
relationships between the supervisor and the employees, which will positively influence
satisfaction with leadership and employee loyalty. The lack of such relationships negatively
influences satisfaction with leadership. The supervisors can use the results of the current study to
identify how their leadership behaviors affect employee satisfaction and how to improve their
leadership skills. The supervisors can also refer to the results to display the leadership styles and
behaviors that can improve employee's loyalty. The XYZ Company also can use this knowledge
to establish leadership training strategies and training programs to create a more positive
working environment and increase productivity.
Limitations
The main limitation of the study was how culture impacted the relationships between
supervisors and employees. The study was conducted in China, and it was important to consider
the values and beliefs of that culture and how it impacted the roles of individuals within the
workplace. The impact of culture on leadership perceptions might have practical and theoretical
implications, particularly in times of globalization.
Another limitation of the study was the employees' personalities and preferences on
supervisor's leadership. Personality" and personal preferences would affect people's perceptions
on leadership styles and their relationships with supervisors. In current study, these factors were
not controlled.
The other limitation was the limited sample size. Limited conclusions and generalizations
49
could be made. Because the target participants in my study were in a certain company in the
marketing Department in China and the purpose is to help the company solve the managerial
problem, the appropriate participants were limited. Generalization of this research topic was
difficult to make to other populations.
Recommendations
Supervisors expect their followers to be loyal to them. The results of this study provided
insights into what employees need from their supervisors and what kinds of leadership behaviors
they prefer. This information could be used to help develop strategies and meet the needs through
leadership behavior development. According to the results, some strategies for improving
supervisor's leadership and employee's loyalty could be suggested.
It indicated that transformational leadership behavior would improve employees' higher
loyalty to the supervisors and participative interaction. The leaders or supervisors should be
aware of what is important for the subordinates and the organizations, and encourage the
employees to see the opportunities and challenges around them creatively. The supervisors
should have their own visions and development plans for followers, working groups and
organizations. The supervisors should have sense of innovation. And also, they should encourage
followers to seek more opportunities and possibilities, not just achieve performance within
expectations. Supervisors should understand the values of the followers and try to build their
business strategies, plans, processes and practices. Respect for the individual is also very
important for building a positive relationship between leaders and employees.
Especially, employees prefer to idealized attributes leadership behaviors from their
50
supervisor because it can increase their level of loyalty toward the supervisor. Employees would
like to be respected by co-workers and supervisors. Therefore, the supervisors should act
respected for good of the working group and employees. They should connect with the working
group and the individuals beyond self-interest. A sense of confidence and power for the
workloads should be displayed.
Supervisor's passive or avoidant leadership style will decrease employee's loyalty level. So
the supervisors should try to avoid acting as this leadership style. Contrarily, supervisors should
clarify expectations and provide goals and standards to be achieved for the followers. They
should not wait until the problems become more serious. When problems arise, supervisors
should try to intervene into the issues as soon as possible. Supervisors should respond to urgent
questions and make decisions promptly and precisely. They should not be afraid of getting
involved in problem solving.
Regarding to the results of correlation analysis, it indicated that transformational leadership,
transactional leadership and passive leadership all have signiflcant correlations with employee
loyalty to supervisor. Transformational leadership had stron g and positive correlations with
employee's general loyalty to supervisor, and strong positive with all the five dimensions of
loyalty except extra effort for supervisor. The group of specific behaviors factors of
transformational
leadership
positively
correlated
with
attachment
to
supervisor
and
internalization of supervisor's values . Therefore, as mentioned before, leaders or supervisors
should be aware of the importance of transformational leadership style and try to display it in
practices.
51
Transactional leadership is also an effective leadership style. It had moderate and positive
correlations with employee's loyalty to supervisor, and positive correlations with attachment to
supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values. Specifically, contingent reward and active
management-by-exception also had moderate correlations with attachment to supervisor and
internalization of supervisor's values . Therefore, equitable pay and benefits are very important
for the relationships
between employees and supervisor.
Supervisors should establish
incorporative and fair rewards exchanging relationships with the employees. They should clarify
expectations and offers recognition when goals are achieved and provide exchanges for their
effolis when followers meet the expectations. In this way, the employees would feel recognized
for their work accomplishments, knowledge and skills, and then have more sense of
responsibility and more willingness of make efforts for their job. And also, when deviances or
mistakes happen during the work, supervisors should pay attention on the errors and standards
required, keep track all the mistakes, and take right actions as soon as possible.
Passive or avoidant leadership had negative correlations with employee's loyalty to
supervisor, and negative correlations with dedication to supervisor and extra effoli for
supervisors. Specifically, the sub-factors of passive management-by-exception and Laissez-faire
were also negatively correlated with dedication and extra effort to supervisors. It was obvious to
see that passive or avoidant leadership is not an effective leadership style. So supervisors should
try to avoid this style. As mentioned before, the supervisors should not wait until the mistakes
become serious or avoid decision making. Contrarily, supervisors should get involved with
important issues.
52
Supervisors should enrich the knowledge about the perceptions of leaders ' behaviors and
how these behaviors relate to employee loyalty, motivation and job satisfaction. Based on the
results of the current study, leadership development programs could help leaders understand the
relationships between effective leadership styles and developing employee loyalty.
The organizations can develop certain training programs or mentoring by professionals for
the supervisors and leaders. Professionals and trainers can use the results from the current study
to develop training programs that support leadership development. The organization can provide
leadership training program or interventions to improve supervisor's leadership. The leadership
training program can be designed based on employee needs and organizational needs. Training
professionals are needed to implement the training programs. And also, psychological
interventions are needed to clarify for the employees about the relationship with supervisors, and
the impacts of leadership styles on loyalty and satisfaction, including leader's daily practice,
leadership behaviors, and the importance of feedback. The organization and supervisors should
involve employees in decision making and leadership improvement and provide training and
teamwork facilitation. In addition, policies and practices related to rewards or feedback system in
the organizations can be adjusted to meet employees' needs in order to improve employee
loyalty.
Future Research
Regarding to this current study, several recommendations for future research can be
presented below.
Firstly, future studies could be focused on how cultural factors influence on the relationships
53
between leadership styles and employee performance, like how to incorporate leadership
development and loyalty improvement in multicultural organizations with diverse cultural
background. It could improve productivity of organizations and employee commitment. The
issue of managing cultural diversity became more central. The results of the current study were a
little different from the previous research, because some of the previous studies were conducted
under western cultural background. The influence of culture needs to be researched more in
future study. The leaders or supervisors in organizations should be more aware of cultural
differences than in the past and should know more about other cultures and their nuances. Data
could be collected from both sides under western culture and Asian culture, which would help
realize the differences between employees' perceptions on leadership.
Secondly, the influences of gender and personality on the perception of leadership behaviors
were not investigated in this study, but they would influence the relationships between leadership
styles and employee loyalty. Investigating the influence of gender differences on these variables
may provide additional information for leaders to adjust leadership behaviors in the work
processes to meet the needs of different demographic groups. So a recommendation is to
investigate the influence of demographic differences on the perception of leadership behaviors in
order to develop leadership training programs.
Thirdly, the instrument used for measurement of leadership styles was Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Future research could focus on if this instrument could be applicable
on both collectivistic countries and individualistic countries. In addition, the MLQ consists of
rater form and leader form. So perceptions on leadership styles and behaviors could be collected
54
from both sides of leaders and followers . If collecting information from both sides of perceptions,
the supervisors' leadership styles could be more subjective.
FOUl1hly, this study examined that how supervisor's leadership affected employee loyalty
and job satisfaction. The low level of employee loyalty was due to supervisor's leadership style,
but there are still other factors that would affect employee loyalty. Future research could focus on
other factors that might also affect employee's loyalty level and retention. According to
Herzberg'S motivation-hygiene theory, factors that would lead to employee's dissatisfaction
include supervision,
company
policy,
relationships
with
boss
and
co-workers,
work
environments, and rewards (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Factors that would lead to
employee's satisfaction include employee's personal growth, achievement, recognition, and
responsibility (Herzberg et al., 1959). Supervision or supervisor's leadership is one of the causes
that affect employee's loyalty and job satisfaction and performance. At the mean time, there are
other factors that would influence loyalty to supervisor. Therefore, future research can be focused
on this field.
In a summary, according to the results of this current study, the XYZ Company should pay
more attention to improving supervisors' management and leadership skills and to monitoring the
relationship between supervisors and employees. Some strategies and managerial plans need to
be developed in the XYZ Company in order to increase the organizational effectiveness.
55
Reference
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and pel!ormance beyond expectations. New York: The Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. 1. (2004). Multi/actor leadership questionnaire, third edition, manual
and sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Burns, 1. M. (1978) . Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chen, H. c., & Barron, M. (2006). Nursing director's leadership styles and faculty members' job
satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Education, 45 (10), 404-411.
Chen, H.
c.,
Beck, L. S., & Amos, K. L. (2005). Leadership styles and nursing faculty job
satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 4, 374-380.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Fahr, 1. (2002). Loyalty to supervisors vs. organizational commitment:
Relationships to
employee
performance
in
China.
Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75, 339-356.
Cheng, B., Jiang, D., &
Riley, 1. H. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory
commitment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: proximal hypothesis or global
hypothesis? Journal of Organizational BehaviOl; 24 (3), 313-334
Coughlan, R. (2005). Employee loyalty as adherence to shared moral values. Journal of
Managerial Issue, 12 (1),43-57.
56
Farh, 1. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organizations. In 1. T. Li, A. S. Tsui , & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in
the Chinese text (pp. 84-127). London: Macmillan.
Gandz,1. (2007). Leadership and loyalty. Ivey Business Journal, 9, 1-5.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hofstede, G. (1993) . Cultural constraints
In
management theories. Academy of Management
Executive, 7, 81-94.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations, software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Karsh, B., Booske, B. C., & Sainfort, F. (2005). Job and organizational determinants of nursing
home employee commitment, job satisfaction and intent to turnover. Ergonomics, 48 (10),
1260-1281.
Kleinman, C. (2004) . The relationship between managerial leadership behaviors and staff nurse
retention . Hospital Topics: Research and Perspectives on Healthcare, 82 (4), 2-9.
Levinson, H.
(1965).
Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.
Ngnui, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership
effects on teachers ' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and
School Impro vement, 17 (2), 145-177.
Redding, S. G. (1990) . The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
57
Shieh, H. L., Mills, E. M., & Waltz, F. C. (2001) . Academic leadership style predictors for
nursing faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal o/Nursing Education, 40 (5),203-209.
Silverthorne,
c., &
Wang, T. H. (2001). Situational leadership style as a predictor of success and
productivity among Taiwanese business organizations. The Journal o/Psychology, 135 (4),
399-412.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves o/culture. London: Economist Books.
Volk, M., & Lucas, M. (1991). Relationship of management style and anticipated turnover.
Dimensions o/Critical Care, 10 (1),35-40 .
58
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter
April 15, 2010
Hello,
My name is Xi Yu. I am conducting a study on supervisor's leadership and employee loyalty.
The results of this study would help organizations and leaders develop plans and strategies to
improve supervisors' leadership and employee loyalty level. With this vision in mind, I am
asking for a few minutes of your time to help us determine what the needs of your organization
may be in relation to our future growth plans.
Please consider participating this research. If you would like to participate, please sign the
Consent Form. Please print the surveys in your email package and complete them individually.
Please do NOT write down your name on any documents. After completing the Consent Form
and surveys, please scan them and save as PDF document, and email me back. My email address
is [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns about this research, please feel
free to contact me or my advisor. The detailed information is in the Consent Form.
Thank you so much for your participating!
Sincerely,
XiYu
Graduate Student / Graduate Assistant
Master of Science - Applied Psychology
University of Wisconsin - Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
Email: [email protected]
59
Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
This questionnaire is used to describe the leadership style of your supervisor as you perceive it.
Answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not
know the answer, leave the answer blank. Please answer this questionnaire anonymously.
FOlty-five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each
statement fits the person you are describing. Use the following rating scale:
O=Not at ali, 1=Once in a while, 2=Sometimes, 3=Fairly often, 4=Frequently, if not always
The Person J Am Rating. ..
1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts ............................................... 0 1 2 3 4
2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate ................. 0 1 2 3 4
3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious ........................................................... 0 1 234
4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from
standards ............................................................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise ..................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
6. Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs ................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
7. Is absent when needed .. .......................... .... .................................................................... 0 1 23 4
8. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems .................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
9. Talks optimistically about the future .............................................................................. 0 1 2 3 4
10. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her .................................................. 0 1 2 3 4
11. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets .. .. 0 1 2 3 4
12. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action ....................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
60
13. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished ................ .......... ............. 0 1 2 3 4
14. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose ........................ .. .......... 0 1 2 3 4
15 . Spends time teaching and coaching ............................................................................. 0 1 2 3 4
16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved ... 0 1 2 3 4
17. Shows that he/she is a firm believer in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ....................... 0 1 2 3 4
18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group ..................................................... 0 1 234
19. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group ............................ 0 1 2 3 4
20. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action ..................... 0 1 2 3 4
21. Acts in ways that builds my respect ............................................................................. 0 1 2 3 4
22. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and
failures ................................................................................................ 0 1 2 3 4
23. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions ........................................ 0 1 2 3 4
24. Keeps track of all mistakes .......................................................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
25. Displays a sense of power and confidence ................................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
26. Articulates a compelling vision of the future ................................................................ 0 1 234
27. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards .................................. ...... ....... 0 1 234
28. Avoids making decisions .............................................................................................. 0 1 234
29. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others ........... 0 1 2 3 4
30. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles ............................................ 0 1 23 4
31. Helps me to develop my strengths ................................................................................ 0 1 2 3 4
32. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments ................................. 0 1 2 3 4
61
33 . Delays responding to urgent questions ................................................................ : ........ 0 1 234
34. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission ........ ........ ........ .. . 0 1 2 3 4
35. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations .......... .. .. .. .............................. .... ....... 0 1 2 3 4
36. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved ............... ...... ................ .. ....... .. ........ 0 1 2 3 4
37 . Is effective in meeting my job-related needs ............... ..... ... ............ ............................. 0 1 234
38 . Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying .... .... ... .. ........... .................................... 0 1 2 3 4
39. Gets me to do more than I expected to do ............................. .... ................................. . 0 1 2 3 4
40. Is effective in representing me to higher authority .............................................. .... .. .. 0 1 2 3 4
41. Works with me in a satisfactory way .............................. ........ .................................... .. 0 1 2 3 4
42. Heightens my desire to succeed .................................................................................... 0 1 2 3 4
43. Is effective in meeting organizational requirements .............................................. ...... . 0 1 2 3 4
44. Increases my willingness to try harder ............................................................. ............ 0 1 2 3 4
45. Leads a group that is effective ..................................................................................... 0 1 234
Copyright © 1995 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. All rights reserved.
It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any
reproduction in any medium. If you need to reproduce the MLQ, please contact Mind Garden
www.mindgarden.com. Mind Garden is a registered trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.
62
Appendix C: Loyalty to Supervisor Scale
This survey is to describe your loyalty to your supervisor. 17 descriptive items are listed on the
following pages. Judge the degree of your agreement on each item. All multi-item scales are
measured on a 7 -point Likert scale (1 =strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)
1. When my supervisor is treated unfairly, I will defend him/her.
1234567
2. When somebody speaks ill of my supervisor, I will defend him/her immediately. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I will put myself in my supervisor's position to consider his/her interests.
1234567
4. I would suppoli my supervisor under all circumstances.
1234567
5. Even if my supervisor is not present, I will try my best to do the job assigned by him / her well.
1234567
6. I will try my best to accomplish the job assigned by my supervisor.
1234567
7. I will do my job conscientiously so that my supervisor will not worry about it.
12 34 5 6 7
8. Even if there may be better alternatives, I will still remain to work under my supervisor.
1234567
9. I would feel satisfied as long as I can work under my supervisor.
1234567
10. No matter whether it will benefit me or not, I will be willing to continue working under my
supervIsor.
12 3 4 5 6 7
11 . If it is possible, I would like to work under my supervisor for a long time.
1234567
12. When someone praises my supervisor, I take it as a personal compliment.
12 3 4 5 6 7
13. When someone criticizes my supervisor, I take it as a personal insult.
1234567
14. My supervisor's successes are my successes.
1234567
63
15. My attachment to my supervisor is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those
represented by my supervisor.
1234567
16. The reason I prefer my supervisor than another is because of what he/she stands for, that is,
his or her values.
1234567
17. Since starting this job, my personal values and those of my supervisor have become more
similar.
1234567
64
Appendix D: Institutional Review Board Form
University of Wisconsin Stout
Protection of Human Subjects in Research Form
Data collection/analysis cannot begin until there has been IRB approval of this project.
Directions:
• Individuals who have completed the UW-Stout Human Subjects Training and can
prove certification are eligible to file this form.
• This form must be filed and approved prior to any student (undergraduate or
graduate), faculty, or staff conducting research.
• Complete this form on-line and print. Handwritten forms will not be accepted. For
your benefit, save your completed/orm in case it needs to be revised and resubmitted.
• Send or take the completed form, with required signatures and required materials
attached, to Research Services, 152 Voc. Rehab. Building.
• This is a professional document; please check spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Research is defined as a systematic investigation, including research development, testing
and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable Irnowledge.
A human subject is defined as a living individual about whom an investigator obtains
either 1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual; or 2) identifiable
private information.
Investigator(s):
Name: Xi Yu ID: 0476412 Daytime Phone # (715) 529-4937 Program: Master of Science
-- Applied Psychology Graduate Student: C8J Undergraduate Student: 0
e-mail address: [email protected]
Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Name:
ID:
Daytime Phone #
Signature:
e-mail address:
ID:
Daytime Phone #
Name:
Signature:
e-mail address:
For students:
Research Advisor's Name:
Renee Surdick
Department:
Operations, Construction &
Management
Signature:
Date
of Approval:
No
Research Advisor: Have you completed UW-Stout's Human Subjects Training? Yes C8J
D.
Reminder:
You must have completed the new training after January 2, 2007.
Project Title: Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and
Employee Loyalty
Sponsor (Funding agency, if applicable):
Is this project being supported by Federal funding? Yes 0
No C8J
You must answer all of the following questions completely and attach all required forms.
65
1.
Describe the proposed research/activity stating the objectives, significance, and detailed
methodology (approximately 250-500 words; descriptions are to be written in future tense).
Objectives:
This study will examine the relationship between supervisor's leadership styles
and employee loyalty to supervisor among a group of participates at a company. This
paper will explore if supervisor's leadership style and employee loyalty to supervisors
are correlated, how different leadership behaviors are correlated with different loyalty
dimensions, and how leadership styels predict employee loyalty to supervisor.
Significance:
It will be meaningful to assume the correlations between employee loyalty and
supervisor's leadership style in order to improve supervisor's leadership skills and
improve the relations between employees and supervisors. It will provide
recommendations for managerial strategies and be helpful to develop a more positive
working environment. This study will be critical to the success of human resources
management, supervisor's leadership improvement, employee performance
improvement, and organizational development.
Detailed Methodology:
The participants will include 65 employees who are working for the nine
supervisors separately in different work groups at XYZ Company.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, 3rd edition (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995)
with 45 items will be used to measure supervisors' leadership styles. MLQ includes
Leader Form and Rater Form, so data can be collected on leadership perceptions from
both sides of supervisors and employees. MLQ measures individual leadership styles
ranging from passive leaders, to transactional leaders (who give contingent rewards to
followers), to transformational leaders (who transform their followers into becoming
leaders themselves). Loyalty to Supervisor Scale (LS) (Chen, Tsui & Farh, 2002) will be
used to to measure employee loyalty to their supervisor. It measures the five
dimensions of loyalty to supervisor: (1) Dedication to supervisor; (2) Extra effort for
supervisor; (3) Attachment to supervisor; (4) Identification with supervisor; (5)
Internalization of supervisor's values.
For the procedures, participants will receive a package of surveys, informed
consent form and instructions. In the instruction, the potential participants will be
asked to consider participating this research, and then sign the consent form if they
would like to participate. They will be requested to print the surveys and complete
them. After completing, they will scan all the materials as PDF document and email me
back. The IRB forms will be destroyed after finishing this study. In this study, the
target company will be referred as the XYZ Company. The names of participates will
not be presented on the surveys. The participants will be encouraged not to discuss
their answers with colleagues in order to increase the likelihood of independent
observation. Confidentiality will be strictly maintained and the data collected will only
be used for this study.
66
SPSS will be used to explore the correlations between variables and multiple
regression analysis on the predictors of employee loyalty. From the result, correlations
between specific leadership behaviors and different loyalty dimensions will be
presented. And also, the predictors of leadership styles and behaviors on employee
loyalty to supervisor will be presented.
2. Is this research?
(a) Is your activity intended for public dissemination? Yes D
No IZI
(b) Can it reasonably be generalized beyond the research sample? Yes D
No IZI
If you answered no to these two questions, do not continue with this form. Stop here and
submit form.
3. Does your research involve human subjects or official records about human subjects?
No D
Yes D
If yes, continue with this form. If no, stop here and submit form.
4. Are you requesting exemption from IRB review in one of the federally approved categories?
If yes, please reference OHRP website
http ;llwww.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.101 and select category
that applies and continue with form. If no, continue with Question #5 regarding Human
Subjects Training.
D (1) Is your research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational
settings, involving normal education practices?
D (2/3) Is your research involving the use of educational tests, survey procedures,
interview procedures, or observation of public behavior, AND identifying information
will not be collected?
D (4) Is your research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents,
records, or pathological or diagnostic specimens?
D (5) Is your research involving studying, evaluating, or examining public benefit or
service programs AND conducted through a federal agency?
D (6) Is your research involving taste and food quality evaluation or consumer
acceptance studies?
5. Human subjects training must be completed prior to filing this form. Have you completed
UW-Stout's Human Subjects Training (http://www.uwstout.edu/rs/hstraining/index.htm)?
Yes D
No D
6. Please note that research cannot begin until this project has been approved by the IRB.
When is the data collection for the research intended to begin and end?
to
(enter month/year)
7. Can the subjects be identified directly or through any type of identifiers? Yes D
No D
If yes, please explain.
8.
Special precautions must be included in your research procedures if any of these special
populations or research areas are included.
Are any of the subjects:
Does the research deal with questions
67
(a)
9.
minors (under 18 years of age)? Yes
D No D
(consent from parent & subject required)
(b) legally incompetent?
.Yes D
No D
(c) prisoners?
Yes D
No D
(d) pregnant women, if affected Yes D
No D
by the research?
( e) institutionalized?
Yes D
No D
(f) mentally incapacitated?
Yes D
No D
Voluntary participation/consent form:
Expected Number of Participants
Describe the method:
(a) for selecting subjects.
concerning:
(a) sexual behaviors? Yes
D
No
D
(b)
drug use?
Yes
D
No
illegal conduct?
Yes
D
No
use of alcohol?
Yes
D
No
D
(c)
D
(d)
D
(b) for assuring that their participation is voluntary. If subjects are children and they are
capable of assent, they must give their permission, along with that of their parent, guardian,
or authorized representative. NOTE: A school district cannot give permission or consent
on behalf of minor children.
10. Procedures:
Describe how subjects will be involved in detail.
If the study:
(a) involves false or misleading information to subjects, or
(b) withholds information such that their informed consent might be questioned, or
(c) uses procedures designed to modify the thinking, attitudes, feelings, or other aspects
of the behavior of the subjects,
describe the rationale for that, how the human subjects will be protected and what debriefing
procedures you will use.
11.
Special precautions must be included in your research procedures if you are doing an
online survey.
Are you doing an online survey?
Yes D
No D
If yes, please answer the following questions. If no, please skip to the next question.
(a) Will your survey results be posted on a website that could be accessed by individuals
other than the investigators?
No D
Yes D
68
(b) Does the URL for the survey include information that could identify individuals, such as
a student ID?
Yes 0
No 0
(c) When you send out an email inviting subjects to complete the survey:
Will you place all of the email addresses in the "bcc" line?
Yes 0
No
Will you have the "read receipt" function turned off?
Yes 0
No 0
(d) If your survey contains questions where the subjects choose from a drop-down menu, do
they have the option to choose "no response" or to leave the question blank?
Yes 0
No 0
No drop-down questions 0
0
If in question #11, you answered "yes" to question (a) or (b), or if you answered "no" to
question (c) or (d), please address your reason(s) when completing question #12.
12. Confidentiality:
obtained.
Describe the methods to be used to ensure the confidentiality of data
13. Risks: Describe the risks to the subjects and the precautions that will be taken to minimize
them. (Risk includes any potential or actual physical risk of discomfort, harassment,
invasion of privacy, risk of physical activity, risk to dignity and self-respect, and
psychological, emotional, or behavioral risk.) Also, address any procedures that might be
different from what is commonly established practice for research of this type.
14.
Benefits:
against risk.)
Describe the benefits to subjects and/or society.
(These will be balanced
69
Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Approval
~,,J
STOUT
152 Vae Rehab Building
University of Wiscon sin·Stout
P.O . Box 790
Menomonie, WI 54 751·0790
715/232-1126
715/232-1749 (fax)
http IIwww uwstQut edulrsl
March 4, 2010
Date:
To:
XiYu
Cc:
Dr. Renee Surdick
Sue Foxwell, Research Administrator and Human
From:
~tUJ y~~
Protections Administrator, UW -Stout Institutional
Review Board for the Protection of Human
Subjects in Research (IRB)
Subject:
Protection of Human Su bjects
After review of your project, "Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee
Loyalty to Supervisor," I concur that your protocol is not defined as research as defined by
Federal regulations. Therefore, your project does not need further review and approval of the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects.
-
-.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
- - --._-- - - - - -
This project has been reviewed by the UW-StoutIRD as required by the Code of
Federal Regulations Title 45 Pan 46
Thank you for your cooperation with the IRB and best wishes with your project.
*NOTE:
This is the only notice you will receive - no paper copy will be sent.