Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty

8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty

1/69

Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor s Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty

by

iYu

A Research Paper

Submitted n Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the

Master

of

Science Degree

n

Applied Psychology

Dr. Katherine Lui

r. Laura Barron

The Graduate School

University

of

Wisconsin-Stout

August, 2010


2/69

Author: Yu, Xi

The

Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie,

WI

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

2

employees and their supervisors. t 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.

t

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 5 items was used in this study to measure


3/69

3

supervisor s leadership styles and behaviors. Loyalty to Supervisor Scale with

7

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 YZ 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.


4/69

The Graduate School

University o 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 o the instructors in Master o Science-Applied Psychology program for their

commitments and sincerity in their instruction. Their supports and helps for me, an international

4

student, are greatly appreciated. Thirdly, I would like to thank the participants

o

this study, who

helped me achieve the success o 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 o my study for Master Degree.

Thank you all sincerely


5/69

5

Table o ontents

Abstract 2

List

o Tables 7

Chapter I: Introduction 8

Statement

o

the Problem 8

Purpose o the Study 9

Research Questions 9

Assumptions

o

the Study 9

Definition

o

Terms 10

Limitations

o

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


6/69

6

Descriptive Analysis

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

:

Institutional Review Board Form 64

Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Approval 69


7/69

7

ist of Tables

Table

:

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


8/69

8

hapter

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

o

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 o 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

o

the Problem

Based on the information presented to the researcher, the management

o

the XYZ

Company was facing a managerial problem

o

unsatisfied relations between employees and their

supervisors. According

to

the statements

o

Manager

o

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

o

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


9/69

9

on a daily basis and conduct the procedures o organizational activities with the followers (Chen,

Tsui, Farh, 2002) . This study focused on the leadership behaviors

o

the supervisors, explored

its relationship with employee loyalty, and provided recommendations for plans and strategies

o

improving supervisor s leadership skills.

Purpose o 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

o

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 o human resources management, employee performance

improvement, and organizational development.

Research Questions

The first research question

o

this study was how leadership style and loyalty to supervisor

correlated with each other, including the correlations between specific behavioral factors

o

each

leadership style and specific dimensions

o

loyalty to supervisor.

The second research question o this study was how leadership styles and factors predicted

employee loyalty to supervisor for providing recommendations on strategies

o

leadership

improvements at the XYZ Company.

ssumptions o the Study

In this study, the relationships between the supervisor s leadership and employee loyalty


10/69

1

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.

i

(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.

efinition o Terms

Transformational

leadership. t 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


11/69

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 t

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

t

supervisor

t

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 o 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.

he

results

of

this current study were possibly different from previous

research that was conducted under the background

of

other cultures.


12/69

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.

ethodology

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

YZ

Company in China.

Multifactor Leadership QuestiOImaire (MLQ), 3

rd

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 7 items was used to measure employee loyalty to

2

their supervisor.

t

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


13/69

3

results, the correlations between variables and predictions

o

supervisor s leadership on

employee loyalty were presented.


14/69

4

Chapter II Literature Review

Conceptual ackground

Regarding

t

leadership, a full range model

o

leadership was developed

t

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 o 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 o transformational leadership, which was to motivate followers t 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 t 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 o having a strong sense o purpose

(Bass Avolio, 2004).

Inspirational motivation leadership (lM) describes the leaders who motivate the followers

by providing demands and challenges t their followers work (Bass Avolio, 2004).


15/69

5

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 jo 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).


16/69

6

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

o

both side

o

followers and leaders. Bass 1985)

proposed a refined vision

o

transactional leadership, which emphasizes rewards exchanging on a

basis o leader-follower relationships.

Transactional leadership focuses more on daily practices o 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 o 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 o pay

exchanging Bass Avolio, 2004).

Active management-by-exception leadership MBEA) describes the leaders who specify the


17/69

7

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). hey 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


18/69

8

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 revious Studies

A meta-analysis was conducted to examIne the predictors

of

employee loyalty and

satisfaction. The predictors were the economic and individual factors, the

jo

factors, and the

work environment factors (Karsh, Booske, Sainfort, 2005). The work environment factors

included supervisory relationship, leadership, stress advancement opportunity and participation


19/69

9

(Karsh et al., 2005). The work environment factors were significantly and positively associated

with employee loyalty and jo 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 t supervisors (Kleinman, 2004).

From the evidence above, it indicated that the close association between supervisor s

leadership styles and employee loyalty t supervisor.

Based on the concept of attachment t supervisor proposed above, which was one of the

dimensions

of

employee loyalty

t

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

jo

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 t 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

jo

satisfaction, beliefs

of

work, and organizational commitment in the collectivistic cultures (Bass


20/69

2

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 n turnover. Effective

leadership styles were closely correlated with employee jo 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 n 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


21/69

2

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. t 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).


22/69

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

jo

satisfaction and commitment in a

developing country. They collected the data on teacher's intentions

of

leaving the

jo

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 jo 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


23/69

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 jo 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 jo 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

jo

satisfaction. The purpose of measuring jo 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

jo s

and their nursing

dean s leadership styles (Shieh et

aL

2001). The results showed that idealized influence,


24/69

4

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


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


25/69

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. n Chinese

context, supervisory commitment played a significant role in the management practices.


26/69

6

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

YZ

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), 3

r

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. t 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


27/69

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) . t measures transactional leadership from aspects of contingent reward, active

management-by-exception

(Bass

Avolio, 2004). t

measures avoidant or

passive leadership

from specific aspects of passive management-by-exception, and Laissez-faire leadership (Bass

Avolio, 2004). t 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


28/69

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

28

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


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


29/69

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

29

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. he 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. he 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; he alpha co efficient of this


30/69

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


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 ollection 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


31/69

3

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.

ata

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. o assess the correlations between leadership styles and loyalty to supervisor,

correlation analysis was applied. o 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


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 col leagues 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


32/69

32

study was to help the company solve the managerial problems the appropriate participants were

limited. Generalization

o

this research topic was difficult to make to other fields. However the

6 target participants were all the employees in Marketing Department the results were very

reliable and valid for this study.

ummary

This chapter described about selection and description

o

participants.

t

described the

detailed information

o

the instrumentations used in this study including Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire and Loyalty to Supervisor.

t

also introduced specific data collection procedures

and data analysis approaches. Limitations

o

data collection procedures were also presented in

this chapter.


33/69

33

hapter

IV

Results

In this study, the surveys

of

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Loyalty to

Supervisor Scale were given to

65

participates in the

YZ

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

YZ 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

YZ

Company produced a more positive profile of transformational and

transactional leadership than passive or avoidant leadership.


34/69

34

Table 1

Means M) nd Standard Deviations SD)

of

he Study Variables N

65)

Leadership Style 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

Transactional leadership

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

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


35/69

5

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. t 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 nalysis

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 dedica tion 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, .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 =

.51 and extra effort

M=

5.96,

SD =

.88

for supervisor,

r 63) =

.072,

p >

.05 .


36/69

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 .

21

-.069 .482 .195 .466** .365**

IC .156 -.089

.424**

.128 .474** .315 *


.188 .035 .408** .207

.509** .373**

CR

.385**

.196

.457* * .366** .578** .524**

MBEA

-.051 -.115

.208 .019

.253*

.101

Passive / Avoidant leadership -.400** - .426** -.120 -.207 -.182 - .326* *

MBEP

-.346** -.310* - .103 -.203 -.193 -.288*

LF

-.308** -.477**

- .114

-.166 -.128 -.301*

p .05

**p


37/69

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, S

=

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

>

. .

Idealized behaviors M = 2.31,

S

= .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, S = .69) and internalization of the

supervisor s values

M = 4.27,

S

= 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, S

=

.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


38/69

8

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 o 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

o

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\

= 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

o


M=

4.27, SD

=

1.38), r 63)

=

.408,p .01. However, there was no correlation between individual consideration


39/69

39

and

dedication

to

superVisor, individual consideration and extra effort for superVisor,

and

individual consideration and identification with supervisor.


(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

o


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

o

the supervisor s values M=

4.27,

SD =

1.38), 1 (63)

=

.578,

p

.01. However, there was no significant correlation between

contingent reward

M =

2.49,

SD =

.57) and extra efforts for supervisor M

=

5.96,

SD =

.88),

1 (63)

=

.196,

p

> .05.


40/69

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

o

loyalty

to

supervisor, except internalization

o

supervisor s values. active

management-by-exception M = 2.42,

SD

= .68) positively correlated with internalization o

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 o significant correlation between passive leadership and

attachment; there was no significant correlation between passive leadership and identification

with supervisor. There was

o

significant correlation between passive leadership and

internalization o supervisor s values.

Passive management-by-exception M = 1.26, SD = .84) negatively correlated with loyalty

o supervisor M = 4.49,

SD

= .96),

r 63) =

-.288,

p

.05. There was also a negative correlation

between passive management-by-exception

M =

1.26,

SD =

.84) and dedication to supervisor

M =

4.40,

SD =

l.23),

r 63) =

-.346,

p

.01. There was a negative correlation between passive

management-by-exception

M =

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


41/69

4

passive management-by-exception and identification with supervIsor. There was also no

significant correlation between passive management-by-exception and internalization

of


Laissez-faire leadership M =

1.03, S

=

.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,

S

=

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


n

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


42/69

42

hypothesis 1 2 (c), 3 and parts

o

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

o

supervisor s values. Specifically, contingent reward and active management-by-exception also

had moderate con-elations with attachment to supervisor and internalization

o

supervisor s

values. This result supported parts

o

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

o

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

o

hypothesis 2 (b) that passive management-by-exception

negatively correlated with employee s attachment.

Regression nalysis

Multiple regression analysis was used to examine how the three main leadership styles

predicted employee s loyalty to supervisor presented in Table 3 below.


43/69

4

Table 3

Regression Analysis o he Effects o Leadership Factors on Loyalty to Supervisor

Loyalty to Supervisor

Leadership Style

B SEB

Transformational leadershi p

1.247 .285

.665

IA .450 .182

.318

IB

.202

.186 .145

M

.398 .236 .269

IS .169

.224

.110

IC

-.136 .217

-.094

Transactional leadership -.326

.296

-.167

CR

.143 .271

.084

MBEA

-.278 -.160 -.196

Passive / Avoidant leadership -.313

.144 -.221

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


44/69

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

R

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 , f

=

.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 ,

f

=

-.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, f

=

-.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


45/69

45

R

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),

f

=

.318 ,

t 61)

=

2.474,

.05. t

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


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.


46/69

6

hapter 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 YZ 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.

onclusions

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


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


47/69

7

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 dedicat ion 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?

f

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


48/69

48

transactionalleaderships are effective leadership styles.

The results

o

the current study suppOlied the intervention

o

developing collaborative

relationships between the supervisor and the employees, which will positively influence

satisfaction with leadership and employee loyalty. The lack o such relationships negatively

influences satisfaction with leadership. The supervisors can use the results o 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 t create a more positive

working environment and increase productivity.

imitations

The main limitation o 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 o that culture and how it impacted the roles o individuals within the

workplace. The impact o culture on leadership perceptions might have practical and theoretical

implications, particularly in times

o

globalization.

Another limitation o 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


49/69

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

o

this research topic was

difficult to make to other populations.

ecommendations

Supervisors expect their followers to be loyal to them. The results

o

this study provided

insights into what employees need from their supervisors and what kinds

o

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.

t

indicated that transformational leadership behavior would improve employees higher

loyalty to the supervisors and participative interaction. The leaders or supervisors should be

aware

o

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

o

innovation. And also, they should encourage

followers to seek more opportunities and possibilities, not

just

achieve performance wit

Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty

Documents

Transcript of Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty