See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290084196

Organizational Commitment As Influenced by Leadership

Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of
Teachers: A Structural Equatio....

Article  in  UIC Research Journal · April 2012

DOI: 10.17158/228

CITATIONS READS
7 3,852

1 author:

Felix Jr C. Chavez

6 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Benthic Profile of the Proposed Marine Protected Area no. 4 Island Garden City of Samal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Felix Jr C. Chavez on 12 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Organizational Commitment As Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Felix C. Chavez, Jr.

University of the Immaculate Conception

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the best fit model of organizational
commitment. Specifically, it established the interrelationship among
leadership behavior, job satisfaction, burnout, and organizational
commitment. Quantitative research design was utilized in this study. The
data were gathered from the teachers among the randomly selected academic
institutions in Region XI, Philippines. Moreover, sets of survey questionnaires
were used as instruments to obtain information from the participants.
Pearson product moment correlation was used to find the significance of
the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Stepwise
multiple regression analysis was used to identify the variables that best predict
organizational commitment and likewise Structural Equation Modeling was
used to identify the model that best fits organizational commitment. The
findings revealed that the over-all leadership behavior of administrators and
organizational commitment of teachers were high. On the other hand, the
job satisfaction of teachers was moderate and their degree of burnout was
low. Furthermore, the leadership behavior, job satisfaction, and burnout
were highly correlated with organizational commitment, and found to be
significant predictors of organizational commitment. Finally, the best fit
model of organizational commitment was the Hypothesized Model 5, which
passed all the goodness of fit indices criteria.

Keywords: leadership behavior, organizational commitment, burn-out level

of teachers, satisfaction level of teachers, structural equation model

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 131

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

Introduction

While teaching is a complex and demanding profession (Day, 2004;

Elliot and Croswell, 2001), the question on how to build up commitment
among teachers is still a problem (Celep, 2000), and this explains why
teachers’ commitment is considered as one of the most critical factors for
the future success of education and schools (Huberman, 1993). To address
this concern, many researchers in the past years have tried to investigate the
different antecedents of organizational commitment. Hence, several studies
have found that leadership behavior (Tatlah et al, 2011); job satisfaction
(Salami, 2008); and burnout (Gemlik et al., 2010) were some of its predictors
with important place in the study of organizational commitment. As a
matter of fact, Koopman (1991) revealed in his study that leadership affected
employees and also found that those employees who favored their manager’s
style also favored the organization more. In contrast, insufficient support
from the leader is one of the important factors that would lead to employees’
dissatisfaction and burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). Employees who exhibit
high organizational commitment are happier at their work, spend less time
away from their jobs and are less likely to leave the organization (Mowday
et al., 1979). Inversely, lower commitment creates the dilemmas that both
affect badly the effectiveness of school and cause teachers to be less successful
in their professional performance or to leave the profession (Celep, 2000). In
fact, statistics shows that approximately one third of new American teachers
leave their positions within the first five years of teaching (Allen and Palaich,
2000; NCTF, 2002). In the same way, numerous Filipino teachers leave
the Philippines and teach in other countries and sometimes give up their
profession for care giving or domestic helper job (Jobo, 2009).
In the Philippines, a research in Vigan revealed that teachers have
least degree of attachment despite the fact that all of them find a sense of
economic security in the school (Tabuso, 2007). In the other way around,
Gempes et al. (2008) found that Baby Boomers faculty in Davao City have
higher level of affective commitment as compared to Generation X faculty.
Moreover, both the Baby Boomers and Generation X faculty demonstrated
the same level of continuance commitment (Gempes et al., 2008).

132
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Gempes et al. (2005) stated that the development of effective model

has been given little regard by most institutions. Thus, the researcher is
interested in understanding the strongest predictors of teacher’s commitment
leading to the exploration of the best fit model that can be used to solve the
puzzle of organizational commitment.

Materials and Methods

This study utilized the quantitative-correlational research design.

It examined the interrelationship of leadership behavior, job satisfaction,
burnout, and organizational commitment.
Some colleges and universities in Region XI, Philippines were
randomly selected using lottery method. After which, the teachers were
selected using purposive sampling technique. A total of 200 teachers
participated in the study. There were four instruments used in this study--
leadership behavior scale (Halpin, 1957), job satisfaction survey (Spector,
1985), burnout inventory (Borritz and Kristensen, 2004), and organizational
commitment scale (Sowmya and Panchanatham, 2011).
Mean was used to measure the level of leadership behavior, level of
job satisfaction, degree of burnout, and level of organizational commitment.
Pearson product moment correlation was employed to determine the
interrelationships between leadership behavior, job satisfaction, burnout,
and organizational commitment. Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression was
used to determine the significant predictors of organizational commitment.
Structural Equation Modeling maximum likelihood (ML) was employed
to assess the interrelationships among the hypothesized models and as also
with the determination of the best fit model of organizational commitment.
In evaluating the goodness of fit of the models, the following indices were
computed: CMIN/DF, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and P of
close Fit (PCLOSE).

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 133

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

Results and Discussions

Level of Leadership Behavior of Administrators. The consideration

leadership behavior is described as high level with the mean of 3.54. Similarly,
the initiating structure is also at high level with the mean of 3.72. Combining
both consideration and initiating structure indicates a high level of leadership
behavior among administrators with an over-all mean of 3.63. This means
that consideration and initiating structure leadership behaviors are oftentimes
evident among administrators (Table 1). Thus, they indicate a remarkable
leadership among administrators by showing their concern not only in
the job productivity but also in the human needs of their teachers. This is
supported by studies of Stogdill (1974) and Judge et al. (2004) stating that
high initiating structure and high consideration have been found to be the
most effective leadership style.

Table 1
Level of Leadership Behavior of Administrators
Leadership Behavior Mean Descriptive Level

Consideration 3.54 High

Initiating Structure 3.72 High

Over-All Mean 3.63 High

Level of Job Satisfaction of Teachers. As to extrinsic and intrinsic

measures of job satisfaction, results revealed that the teachers have high level
of satisfaction in supervision, co-workers, and nature of work with the mean
of 3.72, 3.73, and 3.66, respectively. Other indicators have generated a mean
that is between the range of 2.50-3.49 showing moderate level of satisfaction.
Moreover, the nine indicators of job satisfaction have an overall mean of 3.31,
described as moderate level. This denotes that the teachers fairly agree that
they are moderately satisfied with their job. This result is higher compared to
the findings of Ali (2008) which yielded low satisfaction among teachers. In
the other way around, Bishay (1996) revealed in his findings a high overall

134
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

job satisfaction among teachers. Moreover, the results expresses imbalance

as the teachers experienced higher satisfaction on the intrinsic (supervision,
coworkers, nature of work) than the extrinsic aspects of the job. These
imbalances in the job satisfaction of teachers are discouraged by Malik et
al. (2010) as he stated that optimal provision of intrinsic and extrinsic job
rewards should be provided by policy makers and academic administrators
to make their core workforce highly satisfied and committed to reap the
benefits of improved motivation, performance and organizational citizenship
behaviors.

Table 2
Level of Job Satisfaction of Teachers
Job Satisfaction Mean Descriptive Level
Pay 3.27 Moderate
Promotion 2.99 Moderate
Supervision 3.72 High
Fringe Benefits 3.02  Moderate
Contingent Rewards 3.20 Moderate
Operating Conditions 2.83  Moderate
Co-Workers 3.73 High
Nature Of Work 3.66 High
Communication 3.41  Moderate 

Over-All Mean 3.31  Moderate

Degree of Burnout of Teachers. Data in Table 3 refer to the amount

of physical and psychological exhaustion experienced by teachers. Results
manifest that teachers have moderate degree of personal burnout with a mean
of 2.68. Both work and client burnouts have low degree with the mean of 2.44
and 2.31, respectively. Moreover, the three indicators of burnout generate an
over-all mean of 2.48, exhibiting a low degree of burnout among teachers.
This means that the teachers seldom experienced physical and psychological
exhaustion. This is a positive indication that teachers have coping strategies to
deal with prolonged physical and psychological exhaustion in personal aspect,

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 135

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

at work, and dealings with their clients. In contrast to these findings, it was
revealed in the study of Hughes (2001) that there are several teachers, with
high levels of burnout, who remain in their positions, posing difficulties, such
as lower performance, and negative attitudes towards other employees, and
their own students. However, it should be noted that burnout comes from a
long term process. This is supported by Gandapur et al. (2010) that the onset
of burnout may vary from person to person depending on his environment,
situation and stamina.
Level of Organizational Commitment of Teachers. The affective,
continuance, and normative commitment were described as high level
with the mean of 3.90, 3.57, and 3.60, respectively. Meanwhile, the three
indicators of organizational commitment have an over-all mean of 3.69,
described as high level (Table 4). This means that the teachers acknowledge
that they have strong emotional, psychological, and moral attachment with
the organization. This result is higher than the findings of Noordin (2010)
showing only moderate commitment among teachers. Hence, Meyer and
Allen (1991) explained that it is expected that an employee can experience all
three forms of commitment to a varying degree.
Relationship of Leadership Behavior, Job Satisfaction, and
Burnout with Organizational Commitment. Data reflected in Table 5
manifest that leadership behavior is significantly related to organizational
commitment (p-value < 0.05) and correlation coefficient, r = 0.601. This
implies that high leadership behavior of administrators would essentially
increase the organizational commitment of teachers. This finding conforms to
the previous research of Tatlah et al. (2011) indicating that over all leadership
behavior and organizational commitment of educational professionals have a
positive correlation.
Similarly, the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment is found to be significant (p-value <0.05), and r = 0.488. This
implies that those who are highly satisfied in all aspects of their job are more
likely to have higher organizational commitment. This finding agrees with the
recent study of Narimawati (2007) showing significant relationship between
job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

136
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Table 3
Degree of Burnout of Teachers
Burnout Mean Descriptive Level
Personal 2.68 Moderate Degree
Work 2.44 Low Degree
Client 2.31 Low Degree

Over-All Mean 2.48 Low Degree

Table 4
Level of Organizational Commitment of Teachers
Organizational
Commitment Mean Descriptive Level
Affective 3.90 High
Continuance 3.57 High 
Normative 3.60 High

Over-All Mean 3.69 High 

In the same way, there is a significant relationship between burnout

and organizational commitment (r = -0.234, p <0.05). However, the negative
correlation coefficient indicates an inverse relationship between burnout and
organizational commitment. This means that those who have low degree
of burnout were more likely to possess higher organizational commitment
while those who have high degree of burnout were more likely to have lower
organizational commitment. This result can be confirmed by the recent
research of Gemlik et al. (2010) showing significant relationship between
burnout and the organizational commitment. This is further supported by
Shirazi et al (2011) who pointed out that burnout was negatively correlated
with organizational commitment.

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 137

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

Table 5
Relationship of Leadership Behavior, Job Satisfaction,
and Burnout with Organizational Commitment

Independent Variables Organizational Commitment

  r p-value
Leadership Behavior 0.601** 0.000
Job Satisfaction 0.488** 0.000
Burnout -0.234** 0.001
Legend: ** Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2 tailed)
r – correlation coefficient (r)

Influence of Leadership Behavior, Job Satisfaction, and Burnout

on Organizational Commitment. Leadership behavior, job satisfaction, and
burnout were found to be significant predictors of organizational commitment.
In particular, it shows that leadership behavior and job satisfaction
have positive standardized beta and have highly significant influence on
organizational commitment (p<0.001). In other words, the regression weight
for leadership behavior and job satisfaction in the prediction of organizational
commitment is significantly different from zero at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Thus, for every unit increase in leadership behavior and job satisfaction, there
is a corresponding increase in the organizational commitment by 0.483 and
0.279, respectively (Table 6). This would imply that leadership behavior and
job satisfaction have significant contributions to organizational commitment.
This conforms to the recent studies showing leadership behavior as one of the
significant predictors of organizational commitment and turnover intention
(Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Connell, Ferres and Travaglione, 2003).
This is further supported by Warsi et al. (2009) and Azeem (2010) stating
that job satisfaction is a significant predictor of organizational commitment.
On the other hand, the burnout variable has a negative standardized
beta with a value of -0.112. This means that when burnout goes up by 1,
the organizational commitment goes down by 0.112. Hence, the generated

138
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

p-value is less than 0.05 which implies that burnout significantly influence
the organizational commitment of teachers. This is confirmed by Gemlik et
al. (2010) citing burnout as typical predictor and has significant negative
impact on organizational commitment
Lastly, the findings were apparent in the results of the regression
analysis wherein 45.3% of the variance of organizational commitment were
explained by the three independent variables (Leadership Behavior, Job
Satisfaction, and Burnout) as indicated by R2 = 0.453. This would mean that
54.7% of the variation can be attributed to other factors aside from the three
independent variables. The result is higher compared to the findings of Ali
and Zafar (2006) showing only 39% amount of variance explained by the
antecedents of organizational commitment.
Structural Model Testing. Five alternative models were tested in an
attempt to obtain the best fit model of organizational commitment. Each
model has a framework that could be decomposed into two sub models:
a measurement model, and a structural model. The measurement model
represents the measure loads on each factor to their latent constructs while
the structural model defines relations among the latent variables. Moreover,
the assessment of fit forms a basis for accepting and rejecting the model.

Table 6
Predictors of Organizational Commitment
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Independent Variables B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
Constant 0.925 0.331 2.797** 0.006
Leadership Behavior 0.515 0.061 0.483 8.447** 0.000
Job Satisfaction 0.359 0.075 0.279 4.784** 0.000
Burnout -0.119 0.058 -0.112 -2.052** 0.041
Note: r = .673, r2 = .453, F-ratio = 54.035, p-value = 0.000
** Regression coefficient beta is significant at 0.05 level (2 tailed)

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 139

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

Hypothesized Model 1 presented the direct relationship between

the endogenous and exogenous variables. As shown in Figure1, the amount
of variance explained by the combined influence of leadership behavior, job
satisfaction, and burnout on organizational commitment is 53%. It can be
gleaned also in the model that leadership behavior, burnout, and organizational
commitment are strongly represented by their factors, with beta values that
are greater than 0.60. Nevertheless, the latent job satisfaction is well exhibited
by pay, contingent rewards, fringe benefits, supervision, coworker, and
communication. On the other hand, the leadership behavior (beta=0.56), job
satisfaction (beta=0.42), and burnout (beta = -0.18) significantly influence
the organizational commitment (P<0.05). However, the goodness of fit
revealed that the values were not within the range of the indices criteria as
shown by CMIN/DF > 3.0, (TLI, CFI < 0.90), and RMSEA > 0.08 with a
PCLOSE < 0.05. This means that the model does not fit the data.
Hypothesized Model 2 displayed the interrelationships between
the exogenous variables and as well as their causal associations with the
endogenous variable. As shown in Figure 2, a total of 61% variations in the
organizational commitment can be attributed to the combined influence of
leadership behavior, job satisfaction, and burnout. It was also shown in the
model that leadership behavior, burnout, and organizational commitment
are strongly represented by their factors with beta values that are greater than
0.60. However, the latent job satisfaction is well exhibited by pay, contingent
rewards, fringe benefits, supervision, coworker, and communication.
Meanwhile, the leadership behavior (beta=0.49), job satisfaction (beta=0.37),
and burnout (beta = -0.14) provided significant direct effect on organizational
commitment (P<0.05). Moreover, the latent job satisfaction is negatively
correlated with burnout and positively correlated with leadership behavior
with a correlation coefficient of -0.30 and 0.46, respectively. Thus, no
significant relationship exist between leadership behavior and burnout (r=-
0.13, p-value >0.05). Furthermore, the goodness of fit indicates a reasonable
fit in CMIN/DF with a value of 2.859, but the TLI (0.869), CFI (0.898),
RMSEA (0.097) and PCLOSE (0.000) are not within the acceptable range
indicating poor fit. This means that the model does not fit the data.

140
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

CMIN/DF = 3.245
TLI = 0.842
CFI = 0.874
RMSEA = 0.106,
PCLOSE = 0.000

**

**

Figure 1. Tests of Hypothesized Model 1

LEGEND:
CMIN:Chi-square, DF: degrees of freedom, TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI:
comparative fit index, RMSEA: root mean square error approximation,
PCLOSE: P of close fit
** Significant at 0.05 level

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 141

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

CMIN/DF = 2.859
TLI = 0.869
CFI = 0.898
RMSEA = 0.097
PCLOSE = 0.000

Figure 2. Tests of Hypothesized Model 2

LEGEND:
CMIN:Chi-square, DF: degrees of freedom, TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI:
comparative fit index, RMSEA: root mean square error approximation,
PCLOSE: P of close fit
** Significant at 0.05 level

142
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Hypothesized Model 3 is a model modification of the previous

model showing the correlation between leadership behavior and burnout
with their causal relations to job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
As presented in Figure 3, a total of 61% of the variance of organizational
commitment is accounted to the combined influence of leadership behavior,
job satisfaction, and burnout. On the other hand, 27% of the variation of job
satisfaction can be explained by the combined influence of leadership behavior
and burnout. Meanwhile, leadership behavior and burnout significantly affect
the job satisfaction (P<0.05). However, the relationship between leadership
behavior and burnout is not significant with a p-value that is greater than
0.05. Moreover, leadership behavior (beta=0.49), job satisfaction (beta=0.37),
and burnout (beta = -0.14) shows significant direct effect on organizational
commitment (P<0.05). On the other side, the leadership behavior, burnout,
and organizational commitment were strongly represented by their factors
having beta values that are greater than 0.60. Nevertheless, the latent job
satisfaction is well represented by pay, contingent rewards, fringe benefits,
supervision, coworker, and communication. Furthermore, the goodness of fit
statistics indicate a worthy fit in the CMIN/DF value (2.859), but the TLI
(0.869), CFI (0.898), RMSEA (0.097) and PCLOSE (0.000) are not within
the acceptable range suggesting a poor fit model.
Hypothesized Model 4 is another model modification of the previous
model displaying the causal dependencies of the variables. As shown in Figure
4, the causal associations of the variables are significant except with the
relationship between leadership behavior and burnout. Moreover, 61% of the
variance in the organizational commitment can be explained by the combined
influence of leadership behavior, job satisfaction, and burnout. Furthermore,
the latent leadership behavior, burnout, and organizational commitment are
strongly represented by their factors, with beta values > 0.60. Similar to the
previous models, the latent job satisfaction is well exhibited by pay, contingent
rewards, fringe benefits, supervision, coworker, and communication. As to
the goodness of fit measures, only the CMIN/DF is within the range of the
desired criterion with a value of 2.859. Hence, the other fit measures (TLI,
CFI, RMSEA, and PCLOSE) are not in the acceptable range indicating a
poor fit model.

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 143

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

CMIN/DF = 2.859
TLI = 0.869
CFI = 0.898
RMSEA = 0.097,
PCLOSE = 0.00

Figure 3. Tests of Hypothesized Model 3

LEGEND:
CMIN:Chi-square, DF: degrees of freedom, TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI:
comparative fit index, RMSEA: root mean square error approximation,
PCLOSE: P of close fit
** Significant at 0.05 level

144
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

CMIN/DF = 2.859
TLI = 0.869
CFI = 0.898
RMSEA = 0.097
PCLOSE=0.00

Figure 4. Tests of Hypothesized Model 4

LEGEND:
CMIN:Chi-square, DF: degrees of freedom, TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI:
comparative fit index, RMSEA: root mean square error approximation,
PCLOSE: P of close fit
** Significant at 0.05 level

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 145

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

The Best Fit Model of Organizational Commitment. A model

generating approach was performed in Hypothesized Model 5. As can be
observed in the previous models, the job satisfaction is not well represented
by some of its factors. With this, the indicators having smaller beta values
are trimmed down and those factors that best represent job satisfaction are
remained in the model. This approach is supported by Kline (1998) stating
that model respecification may include trimming or adding measures to
attain good fit. As a result, the goodness of fit values changes in all indices
and notably achieved the desired range for a good fitting model.
Figure 5 shows the standardized estimates of Hypothesized model
5. It can be gleaned in the model that 61% of the variance of organizational
commitment can be attributed to the combined influence of leadership
behavior, job satisfaction, and burnout. Moreover, the combined influence
of leadership behavior and burnout explained 34% of the variations of job
satisfaction. Furthermore, the latent constructs of leadership behavior, job
satisfaction, burnout, and organizational commitment are highly represented
by their factors, with beta values greater than 0.60. This is supported by Kline
(1994) stating that it is usual to regard factor loadings as high if they are
greater than 0.60.
Table 7 displayed the direct, indirect, and total effects of exogenous
variables to the endogenous variable. It can be observed in the results that
leadership behavior, job satisfaction, and burnout have statistically significant
direct effect on organizational commitment with p-value < 0.05. On the
other hand, leadership behavior and burnout have significant indirect
effect on organizational commitment that is mediated by job satisfaction.
Moreover, all of the three independent variables have significant total effects
on organizational commitment with a p-value < 0.05. This entails that
leadership behavior, job satisfaction, and burnout have significant impact
on organizational commitment. Hence, the amount of mediation in the
relationship between leadership behavior and organizational commitment
(0.154/0.645= 0.239), and burnout and organizational commitment
(-0.111/-0.255= 0.435), were only 23.9% and 43.5%, respectively. The
results suggest that job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship
between leadership behavior and organizational commitment and also with

146
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Figure 5. Tests of Hypothesized Model 5

Table 7
Direct, Indirect and Total Effect Estimates in Hypothesized Model 5
Direct Indirect
Independent Variables P P Total Effect P
Effect Effect
Leadership Behavior 0.490 0.000 0.154 0.011 0.645 0.002
Job Satisfaction 0.349 0.000 - - 0.349 0.000
Burnout -0.144 0.049 -0.111 0.025 -0.255 0.003

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 147

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

burnout and organizational commitment. This is affirmed by Kenny et al

(1998) stating that one can claim complete mediation only if the amount of
variance that was mediated have reached at least 80%.
Table 8 shows the correlation analysis between the variables of the
Hypothesized Model 5. The results revealed that the relationship between
leadership behavior and burnout is not significant as shown by its p-value
which is greater than 0.05. This contradicts to the findings of Webster &
Hackett (1999) and Langner (2002) as revealed in their study that leadership
behavior has moderate relationship with burnout.
Meanwhile, the error correlation between e13 and e12, e4 and
e3, e5 and e3, e7 and e5, and e12 and e11 shows significant relationship
(P<0.05). Such correlation would indicate that there are variations in the
latent constructs to which errors were correlated that are not explained
in the model. This is supported by Gerbing and Anderson (1984) stating
that correlated error means that there could be some other issue that is not
specified within the model that causes the covariation.

Table 8
Correlation Between the Variables in Hypothesized Model 5
Independent Variables R P
LB <--> JS -0.152 0.072
e13 <--> e12 0.282 0.017
e9 <--> e8 0.406 0.050
e4 <--> e3 -0.356 0.006
e6 <--> e4 0.266 0.092
e7 <--> e4 0.222 0.134
e7 <--> e6 0.234 0.054
e5 <--> e3 0.317 0.008
e6 <--> e3 -0.157 0.157
e7 <--> e5 0.359 0.00
e12 <--> e11 0.474 0.00

148
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Table 9
Goodness of Fit Measures of Hypothesized Model 5
Index Criterion Model Fit Value
CMIN/DF < 3.0 1.987
TLI > .90 0.950
CFI > .90 0.968
RMSEA < .08 0.070
PCLOSE > .05 0.052

Table 9 shows the results of the goodness of fit measures of

Hypothesized Model 5. All model fit values have successfully met the criteria
set by each index (CMIN/DF < 3.0), (TLI, CFI > .90), and RMSEA < 0.08
with a PCLOSE > 0.05. This means that the model fits well with the data and
therefore assert as the best fit model of organizational commitment. This is
supported by Arbuckle and Wothke (1999) denoting that CMIN/DF should
be less than 3.0, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) should be close to 0.90. Moreover, the RMSEA and PCLOSE values
are supported by MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara (1996) indicating 0.01,
0.05, and 0.08 as excellent, good, and mediocre fit respectively, with P of
close fit (PCLOSE) that is greater than 0.05.

Conclusions

The teachers perceived that their administrators engaged well in both

consideration and initiating structure. The consideration leadership behavior
was higher compared to initiating structure. Therefore, the administrators
were engaged more on the human side of the work than on the output of the
work.
The teachers were high in intrinsic rather than in the extrinsic aspects
of their job. Only supervision, coworkers, and nature of work have yielded
high satisfaction while the remaining indicators were moderate. Although
the overall degree of burnout among teachers is low, the personal burnout
is noticeably higher than work and client burnout. It was also noted that
the desire of teachers to stay in the organization is high. Their affective

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 149

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

commitment was noticeably higher than continuance and normative

commitment.
The leadership behavior and job satisfaction positively correlate
with organizational commitment while burnout negatively correlate with
organizational commitment. The three independent variables-- leadership
behavior, job satisfaction, and burnout significantly predict the organizational
commitment of teachers. The hypothesized model 5 was the best fit model of
organizational commitment.
The findings supported the exchange theories stating that the more
favorable is the exchange from the participant’s viewpoint, the greater is his
or her commitment to the organization. The teachers who have experienced
support from the institutions and their leaders have higher organizational
commitment and low degree of burnout.

References

Allen, M., & Palaich, R. (2000). In pursuit of quality teaching. Denver, CO:
Education Commission of the States.

Ali Aamir, Zafar Sohail (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational

Commitment Among Pakistani University Teachers, Applied H.R.M.
Research, 2006, Volume 11, Number 1, pages 39-64

Arbuckle, J. L. & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL:
SPSS.

Bishay, A. (1996). Teacher motivation and career satisfaction: A study employing

the experienced sampling method. Psychology Journal of Undergraduate
Science, 3, 147-154.

Borritz, M. and Kristensen, T. (2004). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory:

A new tool for the assessment of  burnout. 12 March 2012. http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02678370500297720

150
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Celep, Cevat. (2000). “Teachers’ Organizational Commitment in Educational

Organizations”, National FORUM of Teacher Education Journal Volume:
10E, No. 3, 1999-2000 pp: 82-95. ERIC DOCUMENT ED 452179

Connell, J.; Ferres, N.; Travaglione, T. (2003). Engendering trust in manager-

subordinate relationships, Personnel Review, 32:569-587.

Day, C. (2004). A Passion for Teaching. Routeledge Falmer

Elliot, B., & Croswell, L. (2001). Commitment to Teaching: Australian

Perspectives on the interplays of the professional and personal in teachers’
lives. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational research,
Lille, France.

Gandapur S.B, Rehman R., Khan M.B, Khan W. (2010), Teaching Stress and
Job Burnout among Gomal University teachers, Research Journal of Social
Science and Management

Gemlik, N., Sisman, F.A., Sigri, U. (2010), The Relationship Between Burnout
and Organizational Commitment among Health Sector Staff in Turkey,
Marmara University, Turkey, Journal of Global Strategic Management |
08 2010, December

Gempes, Gloria; Bantao, Eleanor; Prado, Nenita and Penaso, Anthony

(2005). A model of Institutional Leadership in the Context of Change. A
Collaborative Research. UM-Lic 9993280. 04-16-10

Gempes, Gloria (2008). Locus of Control and Work Commitment of Baby

Boomers and Generation X, University of Mindanao, Liceo Journal of
Higher Education Research, Vol 5 No.2 December 2008 ISSN: 2094-
1064

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 151

Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1984), “On the Meaning of Within-
Factor Correlated Measurement Errors,” Journal of Consumer Research,
11 (June).

Halpin, A.W. (1954). The leadership behavior and combat performance of

airplane commander, Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Abnormal
Social Psychology, 49:19-22.

Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of Teachers (J. Newfeld, Trans.), London:

Cassell Viiliers House.

Hughes, R. E. (2001), ‘Deciding to leave but staying: teacher burnout, precursors

and turnover’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 12
(2), 288–98.

Jobo, Jovito (2009). Challenges in the Philippine Basic Education System. Los
Baños, Philippines

Jobo J. (2009), Challenges in the Philippine Basic Education System, University

of the Philippines Los Banos.

Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. & Llies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity
of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, (1), 36-51.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998).  Data analysis in social
psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 233-265). Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.

New York: The Guilford Press.

152
Organizational Commitment as Influenced by Leadership
Behavior of Administrators, Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Chavez, Jr.
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling

Kline, R. B. (1994). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.

New York.

Koopman, P.L., 1991. “Between control and commitment: Management and

change as of balancing”. Leadership and OD Journal, 12, 3-7.

Langner, D.E. (2002). Burnout and leadership styles in residential mental health
workers. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Vol. 62(8-B)
Mar. US:Univ Microfilms International.

Malik, ME., Nawab, S., Naeem, B., Danish, R.Q. (2010). Job Satisfaction
and Organizational Commitment of University Teachers in Public Sector
of Pakistan, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5,
No. 6; June 2010

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.; Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52:397-422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1991).  A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review.

Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L.(1979): The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour.

Narimawati, S. E. U. (2007). The Influence of Work Satisfaction, Organizational

Commitment and Turnover Intention Towards the Performance of
Lecturers at West Java’s Private Higher Education Institution. Journal of
Applied Sciences Research.

Noordin F. (2010). Organizational Climate And Its Influence On Organizational

Commitment, International Business & Economics Research Journal

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A

review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology.

UIC Research Journal.2012.18(1):131-154 153

 Chavez, Jr. Education & Administration

Salami S. (2008), Demographic and Psychological Factors Predicting

Organizational Commitment among Industrial Workers, Department of
Guidance and Counselling. Nigeria: University of Ibadan.

Shirazi R.R, Beiki, Y., Zamanian F., Esapour K., Study of the Relationship
between Organizational Commitment and Job Burnout among Physical
Education Teachers of Golestan Province, Iran, Australian Journal of Basic
and applied Science

Sowmya, KR and Panchanathan, N. (2011). Factors influencing organizational

commitment of banking sector employees. Journal of Economics.

Spector, P. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction:

Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of
Community Psychology. Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 693-713

Stogdill, R. (1974). Personal factors associated with leadership. Journal of

Applied Psychology, January: 35-71.

Tabuso, J. (2007). Organizational Commitment of the Faculty of the Divine

World College in Vigan.

Tatlah, I.A., Ali Z., Saeed M. (2011). Leadership Behavior and Organizational
Commitment: An Empirical Study of Educational Professionals, PhD
Scholar, University of Management and Technology Lahore, International
Journal of Academic Research, Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part IV.

Warsi S., Fatima N., Sahibzada, S.(2009), Study on Relationship Between

Organizational Commitment and its Determinants among Private Sector
Employees of Pakistan, International Review of Business Research Papers,
Vol. 5 No. 3 April 2009 Pp. 399- 410

Webster, L. & Hackett, R.K. (1999). Burnout and leadership in community

mental health systems. Adm Policy Ment Health. 1999 jul;26(6):387-99.

154

View publication stats