Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No.

2 64

Effects of Leadership Styles on Employee’s Commitment: The Case of St.

Mary’s University

Mesfin Lemma
PhD and Associate professor at the International Leadership Institute,
Ethiopia
Kiflom G/Michael
Lecturer, Unity University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Abstract
This study aimed at examining the effect of leadership styles on employee’s
commitment in the context of St. Mary’s University. Explanatory research
design and quantitative research approach were adopted. Using stratified and
simple random sampling techniques, 222 participants were chosen to
participate in the study. Data were collected using the Multifaceted Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) and Employee Commitment Poll Questionnaire (OCQ).
Data were subjected to multiple linear regression analysis. The results
indicated that transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles have positive
and significant relationships with the dimensions of employees' commitment
(affective, normative and continuance. However, there is no significant
relationship between transactional leadership and dimensions of employee
commitment (affective, normative and continuance). Based on the findings of
the study, the researchers recommends to St. Mary’s University to emphasize
more on transformational and laissez-faire leadership behaviors which can
help improve the commitments of their employees.

Keywords: Employee commitment, lassie-faire leadership, transactional

leadership, transformational Leadership, Ethiopia


Corresponding author and can be reached through: [email protected]
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Employee commitment has become an imperative issue since it is linked with
several outcomes. If an employee is committed to his work, he is satisfied, and
does not usually appeal to look for other opportunities. He is less likely to leave
the organization (Gao & Bai, 2011). Nevertheless, employee commitment is a
strong term that is easy to observe but overly critical in real implementation.
For any employee, it is not easy to commit to an organization for over years.
These days everyone looks for a better opportunity and moves out whenever a
better alternative comes in the way. According to Njoroge (2015), there is a
need for leaders to embrace an integrative leadership style as it significantly
affects employee commitment. To increase employee commitment, leaders
should employ both transformational and transactional leadership styles as they
are complementary but not contradictory.

According to Bass and Avolio (1997), we discussed the three leadership styles
such as transformational, transactional and lassie-faire styles based on the
demand of their role and nature of the task which needs to be achieved
according to the desired standards). Both styles have their own pros and cons
depending on the situations a company is facing at the current moment. Thus,
one leader may be exposed to both transformational and transactional approach
based on his/her standards. Transformational leaders try to get into the matter
themselves and help their subordinates to perform the task in a better way.
These leaders follow the concept of conflict solving and encouragement
(Mcelroy, 2001). While transactional leadership is more focused on
transactional and gives/takes approach (Bass, 1985), a transactional leader is
more focused on process and follows the system in which he/she controls the
tasks based on their targets and reward subordinates based on their
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 66

performance. Different from the two aforementioned, Laissez-faire leadership

is an inactive sort of leadership style. It is a hands-off approach to leadership
(Northouse, 2004). The Laissez-faire leader is one who trusts in the opportunity
of decision for the workers, disregarding them so they can do as they need.
There is no relationship trade between the pioneer and the devotees.

Leadership styles have a significant relationship with employee’s commitment.

When an employee leaves the organization, a series of recruiting, selecting, and
training process would be carried out in getting a new employee. According to
Teshome (2011), both transformational and transactional leadership styles have
been found to have a significant and positive relationship with employee
commitment, the institutions should attempt to maintain these leadership styles
within their organizations as a committed employee are most desirable. On the
other hand, Yishitila (2014) revealed that leaders were not displaying an ideal
level of transformational leadership behaviors, Defense University must
prepare and implement leadership development programs to provide
knowledge and awareness about transformational leadership behaviors.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

According to the data gathered from the Human Resource Management (HRM)
Department of St. Mary’s University, there is high employee turnover in which
25% of them left their job in the final year of 2016 (St. Mary’s University,
2017). Due to the existence of the above-perceived problem, this study
empirically aimed to examine the effect of leadership style on employee
commitment at the University. A study by Tsedey (2011) stated that St. Mary’s
University has a gap that needs to be filled concerning leadership practice. St.
Mary’s University needs to carry out to have a healthy work environment and
to be successful. The University leaders should improve the relationship
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

between them and their staff members through clear communication and free
discussion in a friendly approach. Finally, the researcher observed that there
were no studies that specifically focused on investigating the effect of
leadership styles on employee commitment at St. Mary’s University.

Although, there are several studies that have been conducted globally on the
subject matter (see for example, Clayton and Hutchinson, 2001, Nyengane,
2007, Manetje & Martins, 2009, Lumley, 2011), factors applicable in one
country many not fit on other countries. In light of this, the researcher initiated
to conduct this research to show the cause and effect relationship at St. Mary’s
University context. On the other hand, the methodology employed by various
studies conducted in Ethiopia on the same issues seems inadequate to display
the reality on the ground. According to Bekele (2016), most studies directed on
the effect of leadership on employee commitment in higher education
institutions in Ethiopia were based on descriptive survey design. Therefore, this
study aims at filling up the exiting knowledge gap by adopting appropriate
research design and analysis method in the context of St. Mary’s University.
This study has, thus, answer the following research questions:

1. What is the level of employee’s commitment as it is perceived by their

subordinates at St. Mary’s University?
2. What is the effect of transformational leadership on the dimensions of
employee’s commitment as it is perceived by their subordinates?
3. What is the effect of transactional leadership on the dimensions of
employee’s commitment as it is perceived by their subordinates?
4. What is the effect of lassie-faire leadership on the dimensions of employee’s
commitment as it is perceived by their subordinates?
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 68

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Concept of Leadership Behavior and Types of Leadership Style

The inceptions of the terms chief, leadership and lead are from the somewhat
English Saxon term “lead” which implies a street, away or the course of a boat
adrift. To go to head out or to lead or to have done so are the causative structures
identified with the action word heavy. The boat's addition in initiative stems
from the term shape, which intends to offer shape to something (Karadag,
2015). As of now, the idea of leadership is one of the most well-known
territories of study in the field of hierarchical conduct and leadership
investigations. Various types of writing show that it has added a noteworthy
effect on subordinates' mentalities to work (Leonard, 2013). Leadership is one
of the most watched and least comprehended marvels in the advanced
association. In this way, it is not amazing that there are a few potential meanings
of the initiative. These definitions change extraordinarily because they center
on various components of the build (Awan & Mahmood, 2009). Moreover,
Kohler (2016) declared that initiative in multicultural associations is a
procedure with common impact among administrators and representatives.

There are three different types of leadership styles such as transformational,

transactional and laisse faire. A full descriptions of them is presented below.

1) Transformational leadership: it depends on the possibility of motivation

and incitement. A pioneer who is following this style adds that the style propels,
empowers, and accommodates. The pioneer considers the representatives to
accomplish the aggregate objectives and rouses the workers with thankfulness,
group coordination and individual consideration (Masood et al., 2006). A
pioneer with this style realizes how to hold its representatives and how to
oversee outstanding tasks at hand in an even more well-disposed and agreeable
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

way. Since this pioneer is increasingly drawn in with the laborers, along these
lines, laborers likewise feel good and happy with their work (Allix, 2000). If a
laborer is getting the correct supervision in a well-disposed manner, at that point
he/she is increasingly connected with the organization's objectives and goals.
The earth in an association matters a great deal and is one of the main reasons
individuals remain or leave wherever of employment.

2) Transactional leadership: Transactional leadership which is otherwise

called partner authority requires the foundation of relations between the pioneer
and those representatives who work under the leader’s supervision. Right now,
a pioneer accepts that the efficient routine was constrained the representatives
to meet the desire and consequently when they got rewards, they feel
progressively spurred towards their work. The essential undertaking of the
laborers is to adhere to and comply with the guidelines of their pioneer and
buckle down for meeting the ideal objectives (Ghalandari, 2013).

3) Lassie faire leadership: it is an aloof sort of initiative style. It is a hands-off

way to deal with initiative. The free enterprise pioneer is one who has
confidence in the opportunity of decision for the workers, disregarding them so
that they can do as they need (Northouse, 2004). Lassie faire leadership style is
the place the leaders see that individuals from the gathering are functioning
admirably all alone. It is, however, accessible if help is required (Mullins 2005).
The initiative credited by the pioneers who abstain from meddling when
significant issues emerge and the pioneers were seen as latent and portrayed by
maintaining a strategic distance from duty and dynamic, this could likewise be
depicted as non-leadership (Ghose, 2014).
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 70

2.2 The Concept of Employee’s Commitment

As indicated by Allen and Meyer (1990) duty has been conceptualized and
estimated in different manners. Basic to all the conceptualizations of duty found
in the writing is the relationship with turnover; workers who are firmly
dedicated are the individuals who are more averse to leave the association.
Employee’s commitment is the force and degree of each individual associated
with an association and his/her feeling of having a place and feeling of
personality towards the association which will at last lead to the advancement
of his/her gathering reliance and citizenship behavior.

Affective Commitment: Emotional responsibility gauges the degree of

connection and friendship that an individual has with the organization. Workers
in some cases get sincerely joined to their organization and this can be because
of a few reasons, for instance, great inside relations, great climate, inviting
condition and friend inspiration (Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Workers
with this measurement, for the most part, have an uplifting demeanor towards
the accomplishment of the organization's objectives as, there is to remain in the
organization that did not depend on financial components (Powell & Meyer,
2004).

Normative Commitment: This sort of representative stays faithful to the

organization as they might suspect their organization is furnishing them with
advantages and addressing their requirements, so they ought to be faithful to
their organization in any capacity. It shows that this kind of representative
remains in the association regardless of whether they are not happy with their
occupations or regardless of whether they improve openings they will adhere
to their organization (Gellatly et al., 2006). Subsequently, this measurement
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

interfaces the social and good obligations of people with their organization's
objectives (Powell & Meyer, 2004).

Continuance Commitment: This hypothesis portrays that if the employees are

given better open doors, they may leave the organization for their advantages
and we think about them as their need. This measurement is progressively
identified with the dangers and expenses related when one leaves an
association. This measurement quantifies the necessities of the employees for
which they are remaining in an association. A worker probably will not leave
the firm because of the examination, pay, clinical and other monetary
advantages or not so distant future advancement. Along these lines, they
remained in the firm since they need those advantages (Powell & Meyer, 2004).
This measurement discloses to us that the employees are staying because they
don't have better other options and substitutes for the present place of
employment and that they have an elevated level of interests (as far as time,
endeavors, future additions) at their present place of employment (Meyer et al.,
2004).

2.3 Empirical Literature Review

Transformational leadership practices were found to significantly affect
instructor’s responsibility (Amoroso, 2002). The aftereffects of an Iranian
examination by Aboodi et al. (2013) indicated a positive connection between
worker responsibility of medicinal services staff and the transformational
conduct of their leaders. Different past investigations spread various parts of
leadership and its relationship with organizational commitment. Interestingly,
the analyst found a negative relationship between leadership style and
organizational commitment. Awan and Mahmood (2009) in the investigation
results on the relationship among initiative style, hierarchical culture and
organizational commitment in the College library show that laissez-reasonable
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 72

leadership style does not influence hierarchical responsibility. A few scientists

found that the components of leadership style (transformational, value-based,
and laissez-reasonable) have a positive relationship with organizational
commitment. For example, Ponnu and Tennakoon (2009) demonstrated that
moral initiative conduct positively affects representatives' organizational
commitment. Thus, some explored the representatives' view of leadership style
among pioneers and its effect on hierarchical responsibility and afterward found
that leadership style assumes a significant job in the workers' organizational
commitment. Garg and Ramjee (2013) infer that the leadership style of leaders
can prompt a higher proportion of organizational commitment.

Fasola et al. (2013) investigated the connection between transformational and

transactional leadership styles and examined their measurements on the
organizational commitment utilizing multifaceted leadership poll (MLQ) and
hierarchical responsibility survey (OCQ). The discoveries of the examination
indicated a positive connection between Transformational, transactional
leadership and leadership responsibility. The achievement of an association
relies upon the nature of leadership it has embraced. A reasonable leadership
style to a specific setting is a vital instrument to infer and animate adherents
towards objective accomplishment (Lussier and Achua, 2011) which inevitably
subject to employees' commitment. This supposition animates further
evaluations of administration styles applied by chiefs in their everyday
exercises. Leadership and adequacy can primary determinant of the impact of
the initiative on associations' dedication. An association that has not a decent
initiative style, the representatives cannot be focused on their errands and lessen
the profitability of the association. Because of this explanation, various types
of writing could attest initiative styles' certain relationship on employee’s
worker duty (Karadag, 2015).
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

A connection between commitment and leadership style has been accounted for
in the worker and the board writing. A few investigations found a positive
connection between the two factors. For example, Ponnu and Tennakoon
(2009) demonstrated that moral initiative conduct positively affects employee
commitment and worker trust in pioneers. Along these lines, it is basic to know
how a specific leadership style influences the structure and levels of employees'
commitment. To come into that end, it is vital to build up at the start of the
predominant prevailing initiative style portraying a specific association (Bass,
1999). For that reason, the full scope of leadership styles (transformational,
transactional and lassie faire), known to affect employee commitment (Awan
& Mahmood, 2009) have been thought of.

Transformational pioneers have an extraordinary capacity to impact worker

responsibility by advancing the qualities which are identified with the objective
achievement, by stressing the connection between the representative's
endeavors and objective accomplishment and by making a more noteworthy
level of individual duty on part of both followers. As pioneers, they work for
the accomplishment of extreme regular vision, strategic objectives of the
association. Wiza & Hlanganipai (2014), and Buþinjnienơ & Škudienơ (2008)
in their investigation additionally affirms that transformational leadership has a
positive relationship with full of feeling and continuance commitment however
unique for that of regulating duty.

2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study

This conceptual framework tried to show the effect of all the aforementioned
variables. It illustrated a clear picture of the variables used in the study, their
effects, impact, and changes. It helped the reader understand the concept in a
short and precise figure. This conceptual framework is showing the crux of the
whole study and making the subject clearer. This model would help in
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 74

providing a greater understanding of the mechanisms by which antecedents of

leadership style are linked to employee commitment. In line with these
theoretical reviews, the model is developed based on Bass’s (1996) Revised
Full Range Leadership Model. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that
Ethiopian Leaders make every effort to understand the context in Ethiopia
before adopting any kind of leadership style. Understanding the situation and
the needs of various stakeholders to decide when and how to use
transformational, transactional, and lassie-faire leadership will ultimately
determine how effective the leader was in his/her leadership role. The following
model of leadership style (see Figure 1) would be tested in the current study. It
is in this context, that the effect of leadership style on employee commitment
(affective, normative and continuance commitment) of the employee in St.
Mary’s University would be investigated.

Independent Variable: Dependent Variable:

Leadership Style Employee’s Commitment

Transformational Affective
Leadership Style Commitment

Normative
Transactional Leadership
Style Commitment

Lassie Fair Leadership Style Continuance

Commitment

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Leadership Styles and Employee’s

Commitment

Source: Adopted from Bass (1996)

Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design and Approaches

The study adopted descriptive and explanatory research designs. The

researchers preferred descriptive research as it is convenient for description of
the variables such as leadership styles and dimensions of employee’s
commitment. Explanatory research design was chosen as it is convenient for an
explanation of cause and effect relationship between the dependent and
independent variables. In addition, this research adopted quantitative research
approach using a structured questionnaire as a data collection and regression
analysis as a data analysis tools.

3.2 Target Population and Sample Size

The target population of this study were employees of both academic and
supportive staff of St. Mary’s University working at the Head office and main
campus located in Mexico square. It has a total of 497 employees. Out of the
total population, 222 employees were selected using stratified (Academic and
support staff as criteria of stratification) simple random sampling procedures.
The samples were selected using simple random sampling; i.e the researchers
picked the name of employee blindfolded and questionnaire were distributed to
the randomly selected employee. Then the sample size of each stratum is
calculated proportionately as shown in Table 1. Sample size is determined
following Yamane (1967) with 5% precision level. The formula and the sample
size determined is presented below:

ࡺ
࢔=
૚ + ࡺ(ࢋ)૛
૝ૢૠ
࢔= = ૛૛૛
૚ + ૝ૢૠ(૙. ૙૞)૛
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 76

Where: n= sample size; N= total number of an employee of St. Mary

University working at Head Office and main campus; and e= level of
precision, which was set at 5%.

Table 1: Population and Sample Size of St. Mary’s University

Category Target Population(N) Sample size Proportion size
Academic staff 183 82 37%
Supportive staff 314 140 63%
Total 497 222 100%
Source: St. Mary’s University Human Resource Department (2017)

3.3 Data Collection Tools and Procedures

Primary data were collected using a well-designed self-administration

questionnaire which is designed on an ordinal scale of measurement. Based on
the context of St. Mary University, 27 items (3 items of each leadership sub-
scales) were selected by excluding the least relevant to this study. The excluded
items are more related to cost, efficiency, and outcomes. The items were
measured using a 5-point Likert scale marked as 0= Not at all, 1=Once in a
while, 2=Sometimes, 3= fairly often and 4= frequently, if not always. A high
score shows the high viability of leadership style perception while low score
suggests low adequacy perception in the scale.

The Allen & Meyer’s (1990) OCQ was adopted to measure employee’s
commitment for this study. The OCQ consisted of three dimensions such as
affective, continuance and normative commitment. It is a self-scoring
questionnaire and the responses to each of the 12 items (4 items for each
dimensions) were rated using a 5-point Likert scale labeled as 1 = strongly
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly

agree.

3.4 Methods of Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, mean and standard
deviation of leadership style and employee commitment were used. To
ascertain the presence of statistically significant relationship between
leadership style dimensions (transformational, transactional, and lassie-faire
leadership behavior) and employee commitment (affective, continuance and
normative commitment), the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient
was used.

In a bid to identify the effect of independent or predictor variables

(transformational, transactional, and lassie-faire leadership behavior) on the
dependent variable (affective, continuance and normative commitment)
multiple linear regression was adopted. The model specification of multiple
regression is presented as: Yi=α+βixi + e. The left-hand variable Yi denotes the
dependent variable (i.e, employee commitment measured as affective,
continuance and normative commitment). α is the intercept term and, βis
represent the coefficients of all Xis ( the independent variables). Empirically
the multiple linear regression model is specified as follows:

Affective Commitment (AC) = α+ β1TRL+ β2TRAL+β3LZL+e

Continuance Commitment (CC) = α+ β1TRL + β2TRAL +β3 LZL+ e
Normative commitment (NC) = α + β1TRL + β2TRAL +β3LZL+ e
TRL is Transformational Leadership style
TRAL is Transactional Leadership
LZL is Lassie faire leadership Style
e is the error term
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 78

3.5 Validity and Reliability

It is important to make sure that the instrument that we adopted to measure a
particular concept is indeed accurately measuring the variable. Therefore, the
content validity for this study was addressed through the review of the literature
and by adapting instruments used in previous studies (Hair, 2007). To confirm
the reliability of the instruments, we computed the Cronbach’s alpha (α) using
data from 30 participants. The reliability test results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Reliability Test Statistical Result for Leadership Style and

Employee’s Commitments Items
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha
Idealized Influence (Attribute) 0.873
Idealized Influence (Behavior) 0.821
Inspirational Motivation 0.901
Intellectual Stimulation 0.897
Individual Consideration 0.700
Transformational Leadership 0.994
Contingent Reward 0.882
Management by Exception Active 0.799
Management by Exception Passive 0.934
Transactional Leadership 0.800
Laissez Faire Leadership 0.749
Affective commitment .936
Continuance Commitment .944
Normative Commitment .945
Source: Authors’ analysis result (2017)

As can be seen in Table 2, the independent variables scored from excellent to

acceptable alphas. Bass and Avolio (2004) collected and analyzed data from
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

2,154 individuals to test the reliability of the MLQ instrument. They discovered
reliabilities for all the items in a range between 0.74 and 0.94. Our reliability
test results are also consistent with Bass and Avolio (2004). Similarly, Meyer
et al. (2002) performed a meta-analysis of OCQ and checked for the reliability
of the items. Their test result showed a mean value of 0.82 for affective, 0.73
for continuance and 0.76 for normative commitment. Our test results for
employee’s commitment dimensions fall above the results of Meyer et al.
(2002).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Employees Perception on Leadership Styles

and Employee’s Commitment
The mean score for the transformational leadership (2.8) was less than what
Bass and Avolio (1997) considered acceptable (greater or equal to 3) adequate
for effective transformational leadership. From the result presented in table 3,
we can argue that leaders were not displaying adequately the ideal levels of
transformational leadership behavior. More specifically, This transformational
leadership behavior includes instilling pride, inspiring a shared vision, talking
optimistically, and encouraging creativity, placing much importance in
coaching or training, being a role model for their followers, articulating visions,
building commitment and loyalty, increasing motivation and encouraging
creative ideas at St. Mary’s University (Table 3).

Bass and Avolio (1997) also suggested a mean score of 2 for effective
transactional leadership. The mean scores obtained for transactional leadership
in this study was 1.92. The overall transactional leadership style at St. Mary’s
University fall under the range of Bass and Avolio's (1997) suggestion. This
indicates that employees perceived their leaders as doing standards,
expectations and recognizing accomplishments. Leaders clarify objectives and
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 80

exchange rewards for performance. They also inspire a degree of involvement,

loyalty, commitment from subordinates. The employees also perceived as
leaders specify the standards for compliance or ineffective performance to
monitor deviances, mistakes, and errors than taking corrective action quickly.

Table 3: Mean and Standard Deviation of Leadership Styles and

Employee’s Commitment Dimensions
Leadership Styles and dimensions of
employee commitment Grand Mean Std. Dev.

Transformational Leadership 2.28 0.80

Transactional Leadership Style 1.92 0.77
Lassie-faire leadership Style 1.86 0.84
Affective commitment 2.70 0.87
Normative commitment 2.72 0.61
Continuance commitment 3.36 1.19

Source: Authors’ survey result (2017)

Bass and Avolio (1997) also suggested a mean score for lassie-faire leadership,
ranges from 1 to 0. The mean score obtained for lassie-faire leadership in this
study was 1.86. Based on this result, employees at St. Mary’s University
considered that their leaders were using their authority to decide and accept
responsibilities. It sounds logical since each position in St. Mary's University
has clear duties, responsibilities, and accountability.

The mean scores for employee's commitment dimensions to their organization

is presented in Table 3. The grand mean scores for affective, continuance and
normative commitment were 2.7, 3.35 and 2.72 respectively. This means that
respondents have an average commitment levels for all the dimensions. Allen
& Meyer (1990) did not present any figures about the required or ideal mean
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

values for affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Instead, they

studied to identify the positive and negative relationship between the different
types of employee commitment and the outcomes, as well as the pattern for
those findings, and their level of influence. The ideal example is the most
elevated scores for affective commitment, trailed by normative commitment, at
that point continuance commitment. However, the results of this study reflect
that the mean scores are not consistent with the abovementioned outcomes that
continuance commitment has the highest mean followed by normative
commitment, and affective commitment has the least mean. A possible
explanation for the low level of affective commitment and high level of
continuance commitment could be the unsatisfied economic needs of the
respondents. Employees with unsatisfied economic needs do not pursue
emotional attachment to their organization, and thus they will have lower
affective commitment. The result obtained for the least desired type of
commitment, which is continuance commitment, is higher than the desired
level. The possible reasons might be an employee with high levels of
continuance commitment stay with the organization because the costs of
leaving the organization are too high or there are no other job prospects
available in the market.

The mean score of normative commitment is 2.72 and it is only slightly higher
than the mean score of affective commitment and lower than continuance
commitment. According to Demerouti et al. (2001) in a collective society, such
kind of personal sacrifices to maintain interpersonal relations and to abide by
group norms are common. The reason to stay with their organizations, for an
employee is a sense of obligation to their organizations and colleagues. Such
an employee feels that s/he owes it to the employer to stay out of a perceived
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 82

obligation. Generally, the main reason for the employee to stay with their
organization is continuance commitment followed by normative commitment.

4.1 Results of Inferential Analysis

1) Results from Pearson Correlation Analysis
Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship
between leadership styles and employee commitment. McDanail and Gates
(2006) presented ranges to describe the magnitude of relationship as: ±1
perfect, ±0.8 to ± 0.9 very strong, ± 0.5 to ± 0.8 strong, ± 0.3 to ± 0.5 moderate,
± 0.1 to ± 0.3 modest, and 0 to ± 0.1 weak. These findings show modest to
strong positive relationship between transformational leadership and laisse-
faire leadership styles and the dimensions of commitment at St. Mary's
University. The result showed that there is no significant relationship between
transactional leadership and the dimensions of commitment (Table 4). Jackson
(2013) also found that there is a moderate positive correlation between
transformational leadership variable and normative commitment.

Table 4: Pearson Correlation statistics

Variables Normative Affective Continuance Remark
Transformational 0.44*** .358*** .339*** Moderate
Leadership
Transactional -0.058 -0.045 0.054 Insignificant
Leadership
Laissez-Faire 0.514*** 0.231*** 0.329*** Modest to
Leadership strong
***
Correlation is significant at p<0.01 level
Source: Authors’ analysis result

Chandna and Krishnan (2009) and Aghashahi et al. (2013) identified positive
and significant relationship between transformational leadership styles and
affective commitment in the context of the service industry. The positive and
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

significant correlation between transformational leadership and continuance

commitment at St. Mary's University is also in conformity with Wu (2006). The
findings of Saeed (2013) that transactional leadership is not a good predictor of
normative commitment is also in conformity with the results from St. Mary’s
University. Similarly, the insignificant correlation between transactional
leadership and affective commitment is in agreement with Nyengane (2007).
Further, a study conducted by Teshome (2011) in higher education institutions
of Ethiopian reported that there is no statistically significant correlation
between transactional leadership behaviors and affective commitment. Our
findings revealed a statistically weak and insignificant correlation between
transactional leadership and continuance commitment which is also
inconformity with Teshome (2011). The findings from St. Mary’s University
that there is a statistically strong positive and significant correlation between
laissez-faire leadership style and normative commitment is supported by
Cemaloglu et al. (2012). Similarly, a statistically modest positive and
significant correlation was found between laissez-faire leadership style and
affective commitment. Finally, our findings of a statistically moderate
significant correlation between laissez-faire leadership style and continuance
commitment is consistent with Alqudah (2011).

2) Results of Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to examine the effect of
leadership styles (transformational, transactional and lassie faire) on the
dimensions of employee’s commitment (such as affective, normative and
continuance). Before interpreting the coefficient, the overall model fit in terms
of F-statistic and multicollinearity diagnostic tests are discussed below. The
multiple linear regression models have no problems of multicollinearity. The F
statistics results showed that the models are significant at p<0.01. (Table 5).
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 64

Table 5: Multicollinearity Statistics

Collinearity Statistics for Collinearity Statistics for Collinearity Statistics for
Variables Model 1: Affection Model 2: Normative Model 3: Continuance
Tolerance VIF Tolerance VIF Tolerance VIF
Transformational leadership 0.938 1.066 .938 1.066 0.938 1.066
Transactional Leadership 0.994 1.006 .994 1.006 0.994 1.006
Lassie-faire Leadership 0.940 1.064 .940 1.064 0.940 1.064
Source: Authors’ analysis result

Table 6: Estimation Results of Multiple Linear Regression Model

Model 1 (Dependent Model 2 (Dependent Model 3 (Dependent
Variable: Affective Variable: Normative Variable: Continuance
Commitment) Commitment) Commitment)
Independent Variables Standardized t value Standardized t value Standardized t value
Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients
Transformational leadership 0.33 4.59*** 0.34 5.59*** 0.27*** 3.908
Transactional Leadership -0.06 -0.86 -0.06 -1.063 0.05 .702
**
Lassie-faire Leadership 0.15 2.14 0.43 7.10*** 0.27*** 3.818
2
Adjusted R 0.15 0.36 0.18
*** ***
F Statistics 10.93 35.96 13.35
***Significant
at p<0.01
Source: Authors’ analysis result
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

Model 1: The Effect of Leadership Styles on Affective commitment

As presented in Table 6, transformational leadership is moving affective

commitment of employees in a positive way. The standardized coefficients
show that change in transformational leadership by one unit can affect affective
commitment by 0.33, which is significant at p<0.01 (Table 6). This is in
agreement with Chandna and Krishnan (2009) who found that transformational
leadership has a positive effect on follower’s affective commitment. Similarly,
lassie-faire leadership style is found to have positive and significant (p<0.01)
impact on the affective commitment employees at St. Mary’s University. The
standardized coefficient of lassie-faire leadership indicates that change in
lassie-faire leadership by one unit can affect affective commitment by 0.15.
However, transactional leadership is found to have insignificant effect on the
affective commitment employees at St. Mary’s University (Table 6).

Model 2: The Effect of Leadership Styles on Normative commitment

According to the estimation results of Model 2 (see Table 6), transformational
leadership affected normative commitment of employees at St. Mary’s
University significantly (p<0.01) in a positive way. As the standardized
coefficient of transformational leadership change by one unit, normative
commitment of employees change by 0.34. This outcome is consistent with
Ramachandran and Krishnan (2009) who argued that transformational
leadership to have a positive effect on follower's normative commitment.
Similarly, lassie-faire leadership is found to have significant (p<0.01) positive
effect on the normative commitment of employees at St. Mary’s University. As
the standardized coefficient of lassie-faire leadership change by one unit
normative commitment of employees improve by 0.43. However, similar to the
case of affective commitment, transactional leadership style is found to have no
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 66

significant impact on the normative commitment of employees at St. Mary’s

University (Table 6).

Model 3: The Effect of Leadership Styles on Continuance commitment

As presented in Table 6 transformational leadership has positive and significant
(p<0.01) effect on continuance commitment at St. Mary’s University. As the
standardized coefficient of transformational leadership change by one unit,
continuance commitment by changes by 0.27. Similarly, lassie-faire leadership
style has positive and significant (p<0.01) effect on employees’ continuance
commitment at St. Mary’s University. As the standardized coefficient of lassie-
faire leadership change by one unit, continuance commitment improves by
0.27. In this case too, transactional commitment is found to have no significant
impact on employees’ continuance commitment at St. Mary’s University. This
result is in agreement with a Turkish study by Cemaloglu et al. (2012), teachers'
affective commitment is positively correlated with principals using laissez-faire
leadership styles.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main objective of the study was to investigate the effect of various
leadership styles and various employee commitment styles at the St. Mary’s
University in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Transactional leadership behaviors have
a negative effect on affective, normative and continuance commitment in the
context of St. Mary’s University. The findings also revealed that laissez-faire
leadership behavior has a positive and significant effect on affective, normative
and continuance commitment. Except for transactional leadership behavior, the
overall findings from this study suggested that transformational and laissez-
faire leadership behaviors do play important roles in determining levels of
affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment in
the context of St. Mary’s University.
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

Therefore, for effective employee commitment, adopting a transformational

leadership style was commendable. The leaders should consider capable of
inspiring and motivating employees towards organizational goals and
participate employees in the decision-making process and provide employees
rewarded for their achievement. Supervisors who are in senior leadership roles
should have their vision and development plans for team members, working
groups and organizations. They should propel urge adherents to challenge
themselves, move out of safe place and investigate the undiscovered potential
themselves, move out of their comfort zone and explore the untapped potential.

What is more, the University should take into account the increasing affective
commitment behavior of employees, such as emotional attachment with their
organization by inspiring them to have a sense of ownership and to have a desire
to provide support for the change by encouraging them. Similarly, the
University should better consider possibilities, ways to stay employees long
with an investment of time. And reduce turnover in the University by increasing
salary, facilitate the working environment comfortable and improving a good
leadership style. Finally, the organization should strictly concentrate on
normative commitment behaviors which are feeling of obligation, maintain
loyalty on employees' perception. And the University has invested heavily in
employees' attitudes.

The leaders should be good coaches as well, showing the direction to follow,
mainly by walking the talk and setting an example. Sympathy and passionate
knowledge additionally establish the framework for a viable pioneer adherent
relationship. By being change specialists and visionaries and being able to
manage multifaceted nature, equivocalness, and vulnerability, they practice a
colossal measure of willing control on the presentation of their followers.
According to the finding of the study, transactional leadership is an
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 68

insignificant leadership style, having a negatively and immaterial effect on

employee commitment, and undesirable result with attachment to supervisor
and internalization of supervisor's values. To be effective, a transactional
leadership style should be employed with the least extent and specific situations
when needed. Since the employees have felt less extent of continuance
commitment, St. Mary’s University should offer employees' rewards like
paying university schooling, increasing their payments and other benefits to
boost up employee' commitment and work performance. As a result, their goals
will be achieved effectively and efficiently. Besides, the top management must
be more interested in the conditional reward because it is important for the
organization. The University can set certain training programs to develop
leadership skills especially for managers who have a big span of control. In any
event, tutoring programs and meetings by official mentors help senior pioneers
sharpen their abilities. Professionals and trainers can use the results from the
current study to develop leadership development training interventions, based
on University and individual needs. The University leadership culture should
be such that employees are encouraged to get involved in decision making,
strategic thinking, and futuristic planning.

REFERENCES
Aboodi H., M. Javadi & F. Kazemian (2013). Studying the relationship
between leadership styles and organizational commitment in the
healthcare sector. International Journal of Research in Organizational
Behavior and Human Resource Management, 1(4): 58-73.
Aghashahi B., A. Davarpanah, R. Omar & M. Sarli (2013). The relationship
between leadership style and organizational commitment: a survey in a
Malaysian contact center. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in
Business, 2 (11): 1-7.
Allen N. J. & J.P. Meyer (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1-18.
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

Allix N. M. (2000). Transformational Leadership Democratic or Despotic?

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 28(1): 7–20.
Alqudah T. G. (2011). Leadership style and Organizational Commitment:
Project Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
the Degree of, Master of Business Administration. American
Psychologist, 62(1): 25-33.
Amoroso P.F. (2002). “The impact of transformational leadership behaviors
on teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction.” Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. New Jersey, South Orange: Seton Hall
University.
Awan M. R. & K. Mahmood (2009). Relationship among leadership style,
organizational culture, and employee commitment in university
libraries. Library Management, 31, 253-266.
Bass B. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New
York: A Division of Macmillan.[16].
Bass (1997). Transformational leadership Handbook of Research on Effective
Communication, Leadership, and Conflict.
Bass B. M., & B.J. Avolio (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire
sampler set: Manual, forms and scoring key (3rd ed.). Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden.
Bass B. M., & R.E. Riggio (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology
Press.
Bekele M. (2016). Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment in
Selected Poly Technique Colleges of Addis Ababa City
Administration (unpublished)
Bučiūnienė I. & V. Škudienė (2008). Impact of Leadership Styles on
Employees’ Organizational Commitment in Lithuanian Manufacturing
Companies. SEE Journal, 33: 57-65.
Camps J., & H. Rodriguez (2011). Transformational leadership, learning and
employability: effects on performance among faculty members.
Personnel Review, 40(4): 423-442.
Cemaloglu N., F. Sezgin & A,C. Kiling (2012). Examining the relationships
between school principals transformational and transactional
leadership styles and teacher’s organizational commitment. The Online
Journal of New Horizons in Education, 2(2): 53-64.
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 70

Chandna P., & V.R. Krishnan (2009). Organizational commitment of

information technology professionals: role of transformational
leadership and work-related beliefs, Tecnia. Journal of Management
Studies, 4(1): 1-13.
Clayton B. & M. Hutchinson (2001). Organizational commitment of
accountants in Australia and South Africa.
Demerouti E., B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner & B. Schaufeli (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(3): 499-512.
Fasola O.S., M.S. Adeyemi & F.T Olowe (2013). Exploring the Relationship
between Transformational, Transactional Leadership Style and
Organizational Commitment among Nigerian Banks Employees.
International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and
Management Sciences 2(6): 2226-3624
Gao, F. Y. & S. Bai (2011). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational commitment of family employees in Chinese family
business.2011 International Conference on Economics, Trade and
Development, 7: 43-48.
Garg A.K. & D.Ramjee (2013). The relationship between leadership styles
and organizational commitment at a parastatal company in South
Africa. International Business and economics Research, 12:1411-
1435.
Gellatly I. R., J.P. Meyer & A.A. Luchak (2006). Combined effects of the
three commitment components on focal and discretionary behaviors: A
test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69(2): 331–345.
Gerber, P.D., Nel, P.S., & Van, D. P.S. (1996). Human Resource
Management, Johannesburg: International Thompson Publishing.
Ghalandari K. (2013). Investigation the relationship between new leadership
style (transformational and transactional) with organizational
commitment dimensions (affective, continuous, and normative) in
Iranian higher education institutions. Life Science Journal, 10(4): 17–
25.
Ghose R. (2014). A study on the impact of leadership styles on employee
motivation and commitment: an empirical study of selected
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

organizations in corporate sector. PhD Dissertation Submitted to

PADMASHREE Dr. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSIT, Navi Mumbai.
Hair J. F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham & W.C. Black (2007). Multivariate
Data Analysis, fifth edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International,
Inc.
Jackson T.A., J.P. Meyer & X.H.F. Wang (2013). Leadership, commitment,
and culture: a meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 20(1): 84-106.
Karadag E. (2015). Leadership and organizational outcomes: meta-analysis of
empirical studies. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Leonard S. (2013). The Role of Psychology in Leadership, Change, and
Organization Development. A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication.
Lumley E.J., M. Coetzee, R. Tladinyane & N. Ferreira (2011). Exploring the
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of Employees in the
Information Technology Environment. Southern African Business
Review, 15:100-118.
Lussier R. N. & C.F Achua (2011). Effective leadership. New Delhi: South
Western Cengage Learning.
Manetje O. & N. Martins (2009). The relationship between organizational
culture and employee commitment. Southern African Business Review,
13(1): 87-111.
Masood S. A., S.S. Dani, N.D. Burns & C.J. Backhouse (2006).
Transformational leadership and organizational culture: the situational
strength perspective. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 220(6): 941–
949.
McDaniel C. & R. Gates (2006). Marketing Research Essentials (5th ed.).
New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Mcelroy, J. C. (2001). Managing workplace commitment by putting people
first. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3): 327–335.
McNamara, C. (2009). General guidelines for conducting interviews.
Meyer J. P., D.J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch & L. Topolnytsky (2003). Affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-
analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61: 20−52.
Journal of Business and Administrative Studies (2018), Vol. 11 No. 2 72

Meyer J. P., T.E. Becker & C. Vandenberghe (2004). Employee Commitment

and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89:991-1007.
Mullins, L. (1999). Management and organizational behavior. London:
Pitman Publishing.
Mullins L. J. (2005). Management and Organizational Behavior. London: FT
Pitman.
Njoroge D. (2015). Effect of integrative leadership style on organizational
commitment in technical institutions in Kenya. PhD dissertation
Submitted to Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology, Kenya.
Northouse P. G. (2004). Leadership: theory and practice (3rd ed.). California:
Sage Publications.
Nyengane M.H. (2007). The relationship between leadership style and
employee commitment in in Eskom Eastern Region: an exploratory
study in an electricity utility of South Africa.
Ponnu C. H. & G. Tennakoon (2009). The Association between Ethical
Leadership and Employee Outcomes. Electronic Journal of Business
Ethics and Organization Studies, 14: 21-32.
Powell D. M. & J.P. Meyer (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component
model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65(1): 157–177.
Ramachandran S. & V.R. Krishnan (2009). Effect of transformational
leadership on followers' affective and normative commitment: culture
as moderator. Great Lakes Herald, 3(1): 23-38.
St. Mary’s University (2017). Statistics of Human Resource Management
Department, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Teshome T. (2011). The relationship between leadership styles and employee
commitment in private higher education institutions in Addis Ababa
city. MBA Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Tsedey A. (2011). An Assessment of Leadership Practices in The Case of
Open & Distance Learning of St. Mary’s University College. A Thesis
Submitted to St. Mary’s University, Ethiopia.
Van Knippenberg D. & E. Sleebos (2006). Organizational identification
versus organizational commitment: self‐definition, social exchange,
and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5): 571–584.
Mesfin Lemma and Kiflom G/Michael

Wiza M. & N. Hianganipal(2014). The Impact of Leadership Styles on

Employee Organizational Commitment in Higher Learning
Institutions. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4):135-143.
Wu T. F., M. Tsai, Y. Fey & R.T.Y. Wu (2006). Study of the relationship
between manager’s leadership style and organizational commitment in
Taiwan’s international tourist hotels. Asian Journal of Management
and Humanity Sciences, 1(3): 434-452.
Yamane T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York:
Harper and Row.
Yeshitila F. (2014). The Relationship between Leadership Styles and
Organizational Commitment at Defense University. Unpublished
MBA Thesis, Addis Ababa University.