• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The relationship between organizational culture, management leadership style and organizational commitment and their impact on organizational outcomes in a high-technology organization

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Everett Roper
Abstract:
The purpose of this dissertation was to understand the relationship between leadership style, organizational commitment and culture and their impact on organizational outcomes. A conceptual model was identified and used as the foundation for building hypotheses which were based on previous research. In this quantitative study, a survey of leaders and employees in a high-technology organization was conducted. Questionnaires were utilized to collect data to address four research questions. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyze the data gathered. A path diagram was developed for this study using AMOS, a statistical package for performing Structural Equation Modeling. The results show that commitment does have an affect on culture, leadership does affect commitment, and commitment does affect leadership. The effects were both positive and significant implying that the leader has the ability to influence the commitment of the employees and that the commitment level of the employees affects the culture of the organization. However, leadership was found to have no significant impact on culture which was unexpected. It was believed that leadership styles could have a significant effect on establishing the culture of an organization because of their perceived interconnection. While these concepts have long been studied and supported in popular management literature, a key contribution of this study is the notion that they are inter-related and that they may work synergistically in their effect upon organizational performance in high-technology organizations. This research adds to the body of knowledge in practical application of the relationships between organizational culture, management leadership style and individual commitment in high-technology based organizations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pg

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 A. Introduction ..........................................................................................................1 B. Background ..........................................................................................................2 C. Conceptual Model ................................................................................................7

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................9 A. Introduction ..........................................................................................................9 B. Definition of Terms ..............................................................................................9 a. Culture ....................................................................................................10 b. Leadership ..............................................................................................10 c. Commitment ...........................................................................................10 d. Organizational Outcomes .......................................................................11 e. High-Technology Organization ..............................................................11 C. Organizational Commitment ..............................................................................11 D. Leadership ..........................................................................................................20 a. Trait Theories .........................................................................................21 b. Behavioral Theories ...............................................................................24 c. Contingency Theories ............................................................................31 d. Transactional and Transformational Leadership ....................................35 E. Culture ................................................................................................................43 F. Summary ............................................................................................................52

III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ..................................................54 A. Research Objective .............................................................................................54 B. Significance of Study .........................................................................................54 C. Hypotheses .........................................................................................................56 D. Summary ............................................................................................................57

ix

IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................58 A. Introduction ........................................................................................................58 B. The Organization ................................................................................................58 C. The Population ...................................................................................................60 D. Survey Instruments .............................................................................................60 a. Culture ....................................................................................................60 b. Commitment ...........................................................................................62 c. Leadership ..............................................................................................63 d. Organizational Outcomes .......................................................................64 E. Data Collection ...................................................................................................65 F. Reliability and Unidimensionality .....................................................................66 a. Commitment ...........................................................................................67 b. Culture ....................................................................................................71 c. Leadership ..............................................................................................76 G. Structural Equation Modeling ............................................................................86 a. Sample Size ............................................................................................87 H. Summary ............................................................................................................88

V. RESULTS .................................................................................................................93 A. Analysis ..............................................................................................................93

VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................106 A. Managerial Implications ...................................................................................107 B. Theoretical Implications ...................................................................................109 C. Limitations .......................................................................................................110 D. Further Research ..............................................................................................110 E. Conclusions ......................................................................................................112

x

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................113

Appendix A: University of Alabama in Huntsville Human Subjects Review Letter ......114

Appendix B: Participant Request Letter ..........................................................................115

Appendix C: Participant Request Letter – Survey Links .................................................116

Appendix D: Informed Consent Form .............................................................................117

Appendix E: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire ...............................................119

Appendix F: Organizational Culture Index......................................................................121

Appendix G: Commitment Results – ALL Data ..............................................................122

Appendix H: Commitment Results (Varimax) – ALL Data ............................................123

Appendix I: Commitment Results(Varimax) – Reduced #1 ............................................126

Appendix J: Commitment Results (Varimax) – Reduced #2 ...........................................128

Appendix K: Culture Results – ALL Data .......................................................................131

Appendix L: Culture Results (Varimax) – ALL Data .....................................................134

Appendix M: Culture Results (Varimax) – Reduced #1 ..................................................138

Appendix N: Culture Results (Varimax) – Reduced #2 ..................................................142

Appendix O: Leadership Results – ALL Data .................................................................145

Appendix P: Leadership Results (Varimax) – ALL Data ................................................149

Appendix Q: Leadership Results (Varimax) – Reduced #1 ............................................154

Appendix R: Leadership Results (Varimax) – Reduced #2 ............................................159

Appendix S: Leadership Results – with some items removed ........................................164

Appendix T: Structural Equation Modeling Output using AMOS ..................................167

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................195

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Stress and Performance Relationship Curve ................................................4

1.2 Conceptual Model ........................................................................................8

2.1 Kanter’s Commitment Types .....................................................................15

2.2 Managerial Grid .........................................................................................27

2.3 Situational Leadership Model ....................................................................33

3.1 Conceptual Model ......................................................................................56

4.1 Commitment Scree Plot .............................................................................71

4.2 Culture Scree Plot ......................................................................................76

4.3 Leadership Scree Plot ................................................................................84

4.4 Structural Model Path Diagram .................................................................89

4.5 Amos Path Diagram ...................................................................................90

5.1 Amos Path Diagram (Revised) ................................................................100

5.2 Significant Paths ......................................................................................101

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Definitions of Commitment .......................................................................13

2.2 Critical Leader Traits and Skills ................................................................22

2.3 Comparison of Consideration and Initiating Structure ..............................25

2.4 Path Goal Theory Leadership Styles/Situational Factors ..........................34

2.5 Most Common Leadership Styles ..............................................................36

2.6 Six Factors that Affect Culture ....................................................................... 45

2.7 Organizational Culture Types ....................................................................48

2.8 Behavioral Chart ........................................................................................51

4.1 Organizational Culture Index .....................................................................61

4.2 Organizational Commitment Questionnaire ..............................................63

4.3 Organizational Outcomes...........................................................................64

4.4 Commitment Factor Analysis – All Data...................................................68

4.5 Commitment Factor Analysis – All Data (Varimax) .................................69

4.6 Commitment Factor Analysis – Final ........................................................70

4.7 Culture Factor Analysis – All Data ............................................................72

4.8 Culture Factor Analysis – All Data (Varimax) ..........................................73

4.9 Culture Factor Analysis – Reduction #1 (Varimax) ..................................74

4.10 Culture Factor Analysis – Reduction #2 (Varimax) ..................................75

4.11 Culture Factor Analysis – Final .................................................................75

4.12 Leadership Factor Analysis – All Data ......................................................78

4.13 Leadership Factor Analysis – All Data (Varimax) ....................................80

xiii

4.14 Leadership Factor Analysis – Reduced #1 (Varimax) ...............................81

4.15 Leadership Factor Analysis – Reduced #2 (Varimax) ...............................82

4.16 Leadership Factor Analysis – Reduced #3 (Varimax) ...............................83

4.17 Leadership Factor Analysis – Final ...........................................................83

4.18 Survey Instrument Alpha Values ...............................................................85

5.1 RMSEA (Initial).........................................................................................96

5.2 Expected Cross-Validation Index (Initial) .................................................97

5.3 Squared Multiple Correlations (Initial) ......................................................98

5.4 Regression Weights (Initial) ......................................................................99

5.5 Regression Weights (Revised Model) .....................................................102

5.6 RMSEA (Revised Model) ........................................................................103

5.7 Squared Multiple Correlations (Revised Model) .....................................104

5.8 Modification Indices (Covariances) (Revised Model) .............................105

5.9 Modification Indices (Regression Weights) (Revised Model) ................105

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation first to my parents, Noel and Myrtle Roper, who migrated to the US from St. Kitts-Nevis, West Indies, and raised six active children, working multiple jobs and pursuing their own educational goals in order to make a better life possible for us. Thank you for your commitment, dedication, counsel, and sacrifice. You’ve set a tremendous example for how I must live my life and raise my own children.

I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to Dr. Paul Ruffin, Senior Scientist for Microsensors and Systems in the WDI Directorate--US Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center, who in 1986 mentored a skinny kid with no direction and planted a seed of engineering that has blossomed into THIS. Who would have known? You have truly been an inspiration to me. Your model is a hard one to follow and your mold impossible to break. Thank You!

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Introduction No clear answer exists for which concepts most affect organizational outcomes and increase a company’s productivity. Some scholars suggest that organizational outcomes are influenced by leadership (Howell and Avolio 1993, Bycio et al. 1995), others say by culture (Deal and Kennedy 1982, Dennison 1990, Ouchi 1981, Pascale and Athos 1981, Peters and Waterman 1982, Kotter and Heskett 1992), while even stronger claims suggest that organizational culture and leadership are linked to each other and the two together may be influential in determining an organization’s success. Additional studies show that organizations which embrace the concept of employee commitment note improved customer service and productivity as well as lower absenteeism and turnover; all of which can be translated into increased organizational outcomes (Fullam and Lando 1998). Heinemen (2007) further adds that it is a company’s culture that sustains high performance. He argues that leaders and employees meet tough economic goals when a company’s norms and values are widely shared and when its reputation for integrity is so strong that leaders and employees want to succeed. This dissertation seeks to determine if applying theories about leadership, culture and commitment can mean the difference between a company's long-term success or eventual failure. While there is a large body of research that has

2

explored commitment, leadership style and organizational culture independently, the interconnection between these constructs remains more of an implicit theory than an empirical finding (Block 2003).

B. Background Early studies of organizational productivity generally begin with Frederick W. Taylor's (1911) theories of scientific management and more specifically division of labor. Taylor’s theories included the belief that management’s responsibility was to plan work and workers’ responsibility was to perform the assigned work tasks. These principles were implemented in many factories and often increased productivity; however, they also increased the monotony of work and subsequently did little to improve employee commitment or morale. While Taylor may have had the right idea for the time, it can be argued that he did not have the correct approach for today’s environment. The lack of worker input and involvement held over as an artifact of scientific management added to worker frustration. Taylor’s theory did not take into account external factors such as the leadership style exhibited by management, relationships among the workers, the culture of the organization, the motivation of the workers, or their input. Neither did he consider the differing personalities of workers and managers. Taylor's principles were developed in the late 1800's but are still being practiced today. Some managers are working to improve performance and boost productivity without realizing that they may be doing just the opposite. If, in an effort to boost organizational performance, increase revenue, improve customer

3

service, and drive increased productivity, they constrain their employees, do not seek their input, and consequently stifle creative problem solving, their methods are misguided. Numerous external factors are overlooked by managers who see harder or longer working employees as the only avenue to improvements to efficiency and productivity. Even utilizing a reward system that promises compensation for hard work such as bonuses, promotions, higher salaries, or the reinstatement of previously suspended or revoked privileges can create more employee stress than commitment. Rather than motivating employees to work harder, high levels of stress interfere with the quality of work produced on both intellectual and manual tasks. As a result, employees respond in robot-like ways instead of thinking creatively or strategically (DeMeuse and Marks 2002, Bacal 1988). Psychologists (Marks 2003) have determined that an inverted U-shaped relationship exists between stress and performance (Figure 1.1) and that performance is at its peak when a moderate amount of stress exists. Too little stress translates into too little desire to produce and too much stress taxes mental and physical responses and decreases performance. It naturally follows then that workers’ stress level could directly influence their level of commitment to the organization. As shown in Figure 1.1, eustress is pleasant stress which motivates, focuses energy, and improves performance. On the other hand, distress is a high level of stress and is perceived as outside of the coping abilities of the average worker. In fact, distress decreases performance and can lead to mental and physical problems. While seeking increased organizational outcomes managers

4

too often push their employees into distress thereby producing the reverse outcome of performance than they intend. Instead of an increase in performance they begin to notice a decrease. As a result of this stress, workers lose commitment to the organization. Too often the poor performance of the organization is blamed on the poor performance of its employees when in fact managers could have focused on eustress and decreased distress in an attempt to improve employee performance and commitment.

Figure 1.1 Stress and Performance Relationship Curve (www.michaellank.co.uk/stress-curve.html)

Belasco (1991) and Belasco and Stayer (1993) suggested that for organizations to be effective more is needed than just harder working employees and credible leadership. They contend that organizations must create environments that encourage learning and development of responsible employees. Schiro (1999) agreed, describing the empowered employee as one with the ability to lead with minimal interaction with management. This implies that a possible ingredient to an empowered workforce is to first foster employee commitment. Encouraging employee responsibility, establishing a positive work environment

5

and creative decision-making may all help to establish a positive culture in an organization while helping to foster employee commitment thereby improving organizational performance and boosting productivity. Thus, organizations should find ways to improve employee commitment. In the past, organizations obtained commitment from their employees by guaranteeing job security. However, many organizations today have responded to economic pressures by downsizing and restructuring and have thus created a climate of reduced job security. As a result, some employees feel that they are victims of broken promises. Organizations should find new ways to create a committed workforce and managers need to understand the concept of commitment and which behaviors represent employee commitment to their organization (Coetzee 2005). In addition, as in personal relationships, commitment is a two-way street. If employers want committed employees, they need to act as committed employers. Bragg (2002) found that fewer than half of employees feel committed to their employer. Employees pointed to decades of downsizing, rightsizing and re-engineering as evidence that employers treat them as expendable commodities when times get tough. Bacal (1988) determined that even in situations where lack of employee effort is evident, management exhortation is more likely to insult employees than to motivate them to greater performance heights since it assumes and communicates to them that they are lazy. He says, “exhortation to try harder is often a lazy manager's approach to performance issues, and lays the honus for better performance at the feet of employees. A more intelligent and respected

6

approach is to think and diagnose the real problems, and to remedy those barriers” (Bacal 1988, p.1). He goes further to add that employees will work harder, and exhibit more commitment when they feel they are part of the decision-making process, feel consulted and valued, and sense that the manager is on their side (1988). This suggests that organizational outcomes may be affected by more than just employee motivation and points to the leadership style of managers as well as the culture of the organization as possible contributors. Bacal (1988) and Chen (2004) suggest that organizational outcomes are affected by more than just employee dedication, culture, employee morale, or leadership. In fact, they argue that organizational outcomes are affected far more by a combination of things such as employee skills, abilities, understanding of jobs, and restrictions placed on them by the organization than by any one factor. Therefore, top executives need to take measures to ensure that managers at all levels are providing the leadership their staff requires. Managers and employers together can create an effective culture that positively influences organizational performance. A great deal of literature has been generated in recent decades about management leadership style, the culture of an organization, and the commitment of employees. Prior dissertations have looked at the affect of certain combinations of these concepts on organizational outcomes within pharmaceutical companies (Wegner 2004) and state employment offices (Wells 2003) while yet another study (Silver 2000) investigated the affect of leadership on team performance in a high-technology organization. While these studies shed light on

7

the need for understanding how organizational outcomes are influenced by certain concepts, a gap exists in the literature that fails to study the affect these theories have on overall organizational outcomes in high-technology organizations. This dissertation will investigate whether such a relationship exists.

C. Conceptual Model The conceptual model for this dissertation is presented in Figure 1.2. This model shows antecedents of factors that have been found to affect organizational outcomes. Arrows are shown to depict these relationships. Relationships exist between leadership style and culture, suggesting that a manager’s leadership affects an organization’s culture; between culture and commitment, suggesting that the culture of an organization affects an employee’s level of commitment; and between leadership style and commitment, suggesting that a manager’s leadership style directly affects an employee’s level of commitment to the organization and an employee’s level of commitment affects a leaders style. Furthermore, the belief is that all these concepts affect organizational outcomes.

8

Figure 1.2 Conceptual Model

This chapter discussed the importance of leadership styles, organizational culture, commitment, and organizational outcomes; the significance of the study; and the theory used as the basis for this study. The next chapter consists of a review of the literature on leadership, commitment, culture and organizational outcomes. The review draws upon articles, studies, dissertations, and books that describe and analyze various aspects of these concepts.   Leadership   Culture

Individual   Commitment   Organizational  Outcomes

9

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Introduction Top executives are interested in knowing what is most likely to positively influence organizational performance -- employee commitment to the organization, a particular style of leadership within the organization, or the way an organization is structured, that is, its culture. A great deal of literature has been generated in recent decades about management leadership style, organizational culture, and the commitment of the employee. In this chapter, a review of these theories is presented. Section B will define the terms that will be studied, Section C will review the research literature on commitment, Section D will review the research literature on leadership and Section E will review the research on organizational culture.

B. Definition of Terms In order to situate this research within the context of the current body of knowledge, an explanation of the terms that are central to this dissertation is needed. It is necessary to clarify what is meant by organizational culture, leadership style, organizational commitment, and organizational outcomes and to define a high-technology organization.

10

a. Culture Wallach (1983, pg. 29) defined culture as “the shared understanding of an organizations employees” and labeled three separate organizational culture types as bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive. In Wallach’s view, a bureaucratic culture is hierarchical and compartmentalized with clear lines of responsibility and authority; an innovative culture refers to a creative, results-oriented, challenging work environment; and a supportive culture exhibits teamwork and a people-oriented, friendly, encouraging and trusting work environment.

b. Leadership Bass and Avolio (1994) viewed leadership as the observed effect of an individual’s ability to change other’s behaviors by altering their motivations. They view leaders as one of three types: (1) transactional – one who uses rewards as a control mechanism to externally motivate; (2) transformational – one who uses rewards to increase commitment and internally motivate or (3) laissez-faire – one who offers no feedback or support.

c. Commitment Mowday and Steers (1979) identified organizational commitment as a sturdy belief in and acceptance of organizational goals and values, characterized by a willingness to exert significant effort on behalf of the organization and a strong desire to maintain membership in it.

11

d. Organizational Outcomes Organizational outcomes are made up of subsets of performance areas, which are attached to each other and that the organization has decided to maximize, which then form a greater system or process (Walker 2000, pg. 1). They are defined at the highest levels of the organization; with everyone being held accountable that has some impact or influence on those results.

e. High-Technology Organization “High-technology industries are those whose business activities are highly dependent upon innovation in science and technology; they are of interest because of their strong economic performance” (Medcof 1999, pg. 31).

C. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment has been studied for decades. Numerous researchers give credibility to the belief that this theory has a strong influence on an organization’s performance. Early researchers such as Dubin (1956) found commitment to be positively associated with an employee’s interest in work and negatively correlated with an employee’s intent to leave. Years later, Drucker (1974) determined that a worker’s commitment decreases as the ability to participate as an effective member of an organization decreases. Buchanan (1974) determined commitment to be an attachment to the goals and values of an organization, to one’s role in relation to those goals and values as well as to the

12

organization. More recently, Siehl and Martin (1990) found that employees that possess high commitment attitudes tend to have fewer absences and remain longer with an organization than those with lower levels of commitment. Additionally, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found a significant negative correlation of 0.25 between commitment and turnover. Jex (2002) determined that commitment represents both feelings and behavioral tendencies that employees have towards an organization. Likewise, Bell-Roundtree (2004) determined that a committed workforce identifies more closely with an organization and is willing to participate with management in improving performance and productivity. As a result of the many definitions of organizational commitment and numerous scales to measure them, Meyer and Allen (1991) developed a three- component model of commitment to integrate numerous definitions that had proliferated in the literature. Their prior research indicated that there are three "mind sets" which can characterize an employee's commitment to the organization. Some of the most common definitions of commitment are listed in Table 2.1. Consistent with each of these differing definitions is a belief that commitment comes from within an individual. Knowing this, it is important for organizations to be concerned with whether or not employees’ needs are being met socially, physically, and mentally rather than being solely concerned with their passion to work. This may mean that organizations need to become a part of their employees’ personal lives to some extent, making sure they are satisfied both at work and outside of work. To this end, employers should play a large role

13

in establishing employee commitment and not rely on commitment to manifest naturally from within an individual.

Table 2.1 Definitions of Commitment (Meyer and Herscovitch 2001)

“…a psychological state that binds the individual to the organization” (Allen and Meyer 1990, p. 14) “…the psychological attachment felt by the person for the organization; it will reflect the degree to which the individual internalizes or adopts characteristics or perspectives of the organization” (O’Reilly and Chatman 1986, p. 493) “…the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday and Steers 1979, p. 226) “…an obliging force which requires that the person honor the commitment, even in the face of fluctuating attitudes and whims” (Brown 1996, p. 241) “…a force that stabilizes individual behavior under circumstances where the individual would otherwise be tempted to change that behavior” (Brickman 1987, p. 2) “…a stabilizing force that acts to maintain behavioral direction when expectancy/equity conditions are not met and do not function” (Scholl 1981, p. 593)

As a result of a strong push over the last several decades towards establishing committed employees, Desler (1998) indicated seven practices employers should follow which will lead to employee commitment and positive organizational outcomes: (1) emphasize people-first values; (2) base communication on trust; (3) set effective objectives; (4) do high-competency hiring; (5) provide security; (6) promise attractive compensation packages; and (7) be committed to the leadership role. Still other researchers determined that organizations which foster an atmosphere of proactive change have employees

14

who report being the most committed (Desler 1998, Greenberg and Barton 1997, Jones 1997, Robbins 1997). A recent study by Aon Consulting (Madigan and Dorrell 2000) looked at the effectiveness of organizations in building employee commitment. Five key areas were identified: (1) safety and security, (2) rewards, (3) affiliation, (4) growth, (5) work/life harmony. The study found that work/life harmony was of greatest concern to employees. The authors determined that employers need to review and adjust practices in such a way that they help their employees’ balance their lives outside of work in large part because a high percentage of employees ranked these needs as being either the most or second-most important factor in taking a job. In light of the many definitions of commitment that had proliferated in the literature, Meyer and Allen (1991) developed a comprehensive model of commitment. In developing this concept, Meyer and Allen drew largely on Mowday, Porter, and Steers' (1982) concept of commitment, which in turn drew on earlier work by Kanter (1968). Kanter (1968) further defined commitment as that which arises at the intersection of organizational goals and personal experience. Kanter’s view of commitment refers to the willingness of individuals to give their energy and loyalty to social systems. Kanter’s research led to the proposal of three types of commitment: continuance, cohesion and control (see Figure 2.1).

15

Figure 2.1 Kanter’s Commitment Types

In continuance commitment, members participate in the system and remain within the system. There is no evaluation attached to the role. With cohesion commitment, affective ties form that bind members together. Gratification stems from involvement with all the members of the group and there is high solidarity and low infighting and jealousy. Control commitment involves the commitment of members to uphold norms and obey the authority of the group. There is less deviance, challenge to authority and controversy. The employee possesses a feeling of being a part of a group. In Mowday, Porter, and Steers’ (1982, p.27) view, affective organizational commitment is “a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization.” In this definition commitment suggests more of an attachment to the employing organization as opposed to specific tasks, environmental factors, and the location

16

where the duties are performed (1982). The authors expound on this definition further by saying that commitment represents something beyond mere passive loyalty to an organization--it involves an active relationship with the organization so that individuals are willing to give something of themselves in order to contribute to the organization’s well being. This definition does not preclude the possibility that individuals will also be committed to other aspects of their environment, such as one’s family or union or political party, it simply asserts that regardless of these other possible commitments, the organizationally-committed individual will tend to exhibit one or all of the three behavior types. Like Kanter, Meyer and Allen’s (1991) theory also identified a three- component model. The first component of the model, Affective Commitment, relates to the employee's positive emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. An employee who is affectively committed strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. This employee commits to the organization because they want to do so. The second component model developed by Meyer and Allen (1991) is Continuance Commitment. In this model, the individual commits to the organization because they perceive the high costs of leaving including losing organizational membership such as pension accruals and friendship ties with co- workers, wasting time acquiring skills, losing attractive benefits, losing seniority, or uprooting a family. The employee remains a member of the organization because they feel they have to.

17

The final component of the model, Normative Commitment, relates to an individual committing to and remaining with an organization because of feelings of obligation. These feelings may derive from many sources. The organization may have invested resources in training an employee who then feels a moral obligation to put forth effort on the job and stay with the organization to repay the debt. It may also reflect an internalized norm--developed before the person joins the organization through family or other socialization processes--that one should be loyal to one's organization. In essence, the employee stays with the organization because of a real or perceived obligation. Common to these three components is the view that commitment is a psychological state that characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization and their desire to remain a part of it. Meyer and Allen (1991, pg. 718) determined that “affective commitment correlated positively, whereas continuance and normative commitment correlated negatively, with self-report measures of motivation and performance.” As a result of their research, Meyer and Allen (1991) developed the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS), the Normative Commitment Scale (NCS) and the Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS) to measure these components of commitment, as well as to determine what impact an employee's level of commitment has on outcomes such as quitting behavior, job performance, and absenteeism. However, Mowday’s Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) receives the most use and has been the most trusted and respected instrument for measuring commitment for decades (Mowday et al. 1979). The

18

OCQ has been used successfully with high reliability in over thirty-five studies in organizational behavior (Cullen et al. 1995).

Full document contains 219 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this dissertation was to understand the relationship between leadership style, organizational commitment and culture and their impact on organizational outcomes. A conceptual model was identified and used as the foundation for building hypotheses which were based on previous research. In this quantitative study, a survey of leaders and employees in a high-technology organization was conducted. Questionnaires were utilized to collect data to address four research questions. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyze the data gathered. A path diagram was developed for this study using AMOS, a statistical package for performing Structural Equation Modeling. The results show that commitment does have an affect on culture, leadership does affect commitment, and commitment does affect leadership. The effects were both positive and significant implying that the leader has the ability to influence the commitment of the employees and that the commitment level of the employees affects the culture of the organization. However, leadership was found to have no significant impact on culture which was unexpected. It was believed that leadership styles could have a significant effect on establishing the culture of an organization because of their perceived interconnection. While these concepts have long been studied and supported in popular management literature, a key contribution of this study is the notion that they are inter-related and that they may work synergistically in their effect upon organizational performance in high-technology organizations. This research adds to the body of knowledge in practical application of the relationships between organizational culture, management leadership style and individual commitment in high-technology based organizations.