Technology

A great deal of research has been conducted examining the leadership styles of managers and administrators. Much research has also been done to measure the organizational commitment of employees however, is known about the relationship that exists between these two variables.  This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the relationship between managers leadership style and employees organizational commitment.
       
The employees are the organizations front liners. They are the key players in making sure that the goods are delivered to the clients. Moreover, it is important for the managers to be aware of the subordinates degree of organizational commitment so that they may look into possible ways of strengthening the commitment.

Lastly, data from this research may contribute to the existing literature on the relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership begins with character.  The inner and personal attributes such as honesty, willingness to serve, recognition of others good deeds, care for the human person and identification with the larger goals of the organization all contribute to the making of a leader.  The leader is admired, respected and trusted by his followers because his character is deemed worthy of emulation (Bass and Avolio 1994, 3).

But times have changed.  In an age of accountability, it takes more than a respectable character to run an organization.  Gill (2006) asserts that character traits appear to be enabling rather than determining.  To believe that universal traits define a leader is nothing more than a return to the antiquated trait  theory of leadership which suggested that special traits and personality set leaders apart from non-leaders (Gill 2006, 41).   A leader must think in terms of performance, not personality.  It is not so much what he does, but what he achieves that matters (Reddin 1970, 3, 9).

A leaders effectiveness is measured by the extent to which he influences his followers to achieve group objectives (Reddin 1970, 8).  Leadership effectiveness is seen in relation to a specific situation.  A leaders ability to adapt his leadership style to the demands of the situation is a function of his effectiveness.  His effectiveness is crucial to the success of the organization.

I.  Leadership in Organizations
According to Stogdill (1948) Leadership is a process of interaction between persons who participate in goal oriented group activities.  Stogdills concept of  leadership leads to three assumptions.  First is that leadership is a function of an individual.  Second, leadership is an aspect of group organization.  Third, leadership is concerned with attaining objectives (Stogdill and Shartle 1948, 287). These objectives set the direction of the organization, making leadership a crucial function (Simon 1948, 9).

The earliest systematic research on leadership identified traits of great leaders.  It assumed that great leaders were endowed with universal characteristics that set them apart from non-leaders.

Around the 1930s to the 1940s, however, several studies altered the view on human traits as the basis of leadership. Researchers began to look into leader behavior as the basis of leadership.

Leadership Theories
In as much as the behavior of leaders in an organization is crucial to leadership effectiveness, evidence from research clearly indicates that there is no single all-purpose leadership style (Korman 1966, 349-361).  Successful leaders are those who can adapt their behavior to meet the demands of the environment.

The situation is an important factor which contributes to the leaders effectiveness. This discovery led to the development of Situational or Contingency Theories in the late 1960s. Contingency Theories suggest that there is no one best style of leadership.  Successful leadership is dependent on the nature of the situation and the followers (Fiedler 1967, 12).
Fiedlers Leadership Contingency Theory

Fiedler pioneered the study of contingency theories in the 1960s.  His Leadership Contingency Theory asserts two basic assumptions.  First, the Contingency Model suggests that a leader has either a Relationship Oriented Style or a Task Oriented Style.  Second, the three most important situational variables interacting with a leadership style are (a) Leader-Member Relationships, (b) Task Structure (c) Formal Position Power.  All three variables have an impact on the degree of control of the leader.

A few of the criticisms of Fiedlers Theory (1967) have been the difficulty in assessing its variables and the little attention it gives to the characteristics of its subordinates (Walter 1969, 33-47). Nevertheless, his work paved the way for a more adequate analysis, not only of leadership effectiveness, but also of both the situation and the organization.

Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory
Hersey and Blanchard developed the Situational Leadership Model in 1969.  This theory assumes that the leadership style  behavior of the leader as perceived by the followers  can be classified into task behavior and relationship behavior.

Task behavior is the defined as the extent to which the leader spells out the duties and responsibilities of an individual or group.  This behavior includes telling people what to do, how to do it, when to do it and who is to do it.  Relationship behavior, on the other hand, is defined as the extent to which the leader engages in a two-way or multi-way communication.  This behavior includes listening, facilitating and supportive behaviors (Hersey and Blanchard 1969, 191).

The biggest contribution of Hersey and Blanchard (1969) to the understanding of leadership is the importance given to ReadinessMaturity level, defined as the followers willingness ability to accomplish a specific task (Hersey  and Blanchard 1969, 193) as an important situational factor that determines the effectiveness of any leadership style.

William Reddins 3-D Theory of Leadership Effectiveness
In 1970, William Reddin developed the 3-D Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. This theory was chosen for this study because it attempts to put together theoretical bases previously mentioned such as leader traits, leader behavior, leader-follower relationships and situational factors. The 3-D Theory differentiates itself sharply from most behavioral theories in the centrality it gives to Effectiveness.  This theory suggests that the prime purpose of any leadership action is to improve effectiveness (Reddin 1970, 182).

House-Mitchell Path-Goal Theory
Evans (1970) put forth that leadership serves two important functions  path clarification and rewarding.  House (1971) expounded this idea and together, they developed the Path-Goal Theory. They contended that a more comprehensive theory must be able to recognize at least four distinctive types of leader behavior.  There are  1.  Directive Leadership that provides specific guidance and clarifies expectations, 2.  Supportive Leadership that shows concern for status and personal needs of the subordinates, 3.  Achievement Oriented Leadership that sets challenging goals, seeks performance improvement and emphasizes excellence, and 4.  Participative Leadership that consults with subordinates in decision-making (House 1971, 324-325).

The two situational factors that mediate between leader behavior and subordinates outcomes are  (a) follower characteristics and (b) environmental factors.
Vroom-Yetton Normative Theory

In 1973, Vroom and Yetton developed the Normative Model which operates on five basic assumptions  (a) The normative model was created to be of potential value to leaders in determining a leadership method that is both operational and specific to a situation.  (b) There are a number processes by which organizational problems translate into solutions and these processes differ in terms of the potential amount of participation of the subordinates in the problem-solving process.  (c) No one leadership method is applicable to all situations the function of the normative model is to provide a framework for the analysis of situational requirements that can be translated into prescriptions of leadership style.  (d)  The most appropriate unit of analysis of the situation is the particular problem to be solved and the context in which the problem occurs.  (e) The leadership method that is to be used in one situation should not constrain the method or style to be used in other situations (Vroom and Yetton 1973, 12-16).
Transformative Leadership
Bass (1985, 3) expounded the idea of transformational and transactional leadership and characterized transformational leaders as harnessing in their subordinates the capacity to perform beyond expectations. Transformational leaders motivate and stimulate their subordinates to transcend from their own personal interest for the greater good of the group, organization or society.

Transformational leaders tend to use one or more of the four Is  individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence.  As a result, subordinates want to meet the expectations and display commitment, not merely complying to the vision, mission and tasks (Bass and Avolio 1994, 27).

II. Organizational Commitment
Barnard (1938) defines formal organization as a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more individuals who are  1. able to communicate with each other 2. willing to contribute action and 3. accomplish a common purpose.  Thus, an organization, simple or complex, is always a system of cooperated human efforts guided by a purpose and a personal willingness to contribute to the organization.  (Barnard 1938, 73,82).
 
The capacity of any organization to thrive is dependent upon the willingness of its members to effectively contribute to organizational purpose. The members willingness and contribution are likewise dependent on the satisfaction they get from the organization.  If the satisfaction outweighs the sacrifices, then, there is organizational equilibrium (Barnard 1938, 82-83).

The Theory of Organizational Equilibrium is essentially a theory of motivation  a set of conditions that can encourage the members to continue membership in their present organization.  This theory reflects the organizations success in arranging payments to its participants to induce their continued participation in the organization (March and Simon in 1958, 84-93).  

Becker (1960) explains commitment as a consistent behavior a disposition to engage in consistent lines of activity as a result of the accumulation of side bets that would be lost if the activity were discontinued. Consistent lines of activity refers to the decision of the individual to maintain membership in his present organization, side bet, on the other hand refers to anything of value in which the individual has invested that would be lost or deemed worthless at some perceived cost to the individual if he decides to leave the organization.  The perceived cost of leaving the present organization may be magnified by a perceived lack of alternatives to replace the forgone investments (Becker 1960, 33-35).
Kanter (1968, 504) describes cognitive-continuance commitment as that which occurs when there is profit associated with continued participation in the organization and a cost associated with leaving the organization. He likewise defines cohesion commitment as the individual fund of affectivity and emotion to the group.

For Stebbins (1970, 527), continuance commitment is the awareness of the impossibility of choosing a different social identity because of the penalties or inconveniences that will result from this choice.
Kiesler (1971, 26) defines commitment as the pledging or binding of oneself, as in committing oneself to a course of action.  Extensive experiments he did on this subject identified three variables, namely (a) extremeness of attitudes, (b) familiarity with attitude issue (depth of knowledge) and (c) social support for attitude (degree of affiliation with others advocating the same stance) (Kiesler 1971, 27).  He hypothesizes that a person can be committed to a group either by membership (belonging to a group by a semi-formal way) or by reference. A reference is a group where the individual gains values, opinions and so forth (Kiesler 1971, 176).

The most prevalent approach to organizational commitment literature is one where commitment is considered as an emotional or affective attachment to the organization with which the employee identifies, in which he is involved and to which he enjoys membership in the organization.

Buchanan (1974, 533) conceptualizes commitment as a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values of the organization, to ones role in relation to the goals and values  and to that of the organization apart from its purely instrumental worth.

Porter, Mowday and Steers (1979, 226) best represent the affective attachment approach by defining organizational commitment as the relative strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular organization.  It can be characterized by three related factors  (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals and values (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and (c) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization.  Commitment therefore represents something more than loyalty to an organization.  It involves an active relationship with the organization where the employees are willing contribute and cooperate for the fulfillment of the organizational goals as evidenced not only in their beliefs and opinions but from their actions as well (Porter, Mowday and Steers 1979, 226).

Summary
The managers are faced with a myriad of responsibilities.  The time, effort and skill they put into their jobs are crucial to their effectiveness.   They should be aware of the employees level of organizational commitment so that they may explore possible ways of strengthening their level of commitment.
The employees are the schools front liners. They are the key players in making sure that the goods are delivered to the clients. A more harmonious and cooperative relationship between the manager and their employees should be forged which is important for the smooth running of the organization.

The relationship between the superior and subordinate is one of the most important aspects in an organization.  Superiors and subordinates share a common vision, albeit different roles and expectations. This vision is articulated and spelled-out by the administrators while employees serve as a catalyst in the realization of this vision.

The subordinate, however, must first be able to bridge the gap between what he is asked to do, by the requirements of his job, and his own personal beliefs and values, before he is able to commit himself to the organization.   Commitment is forged when the ideals and values of the employee are congruent to that of the organization.  An employees active participation in the fulfillment of the companys vision-mission is determined by his commitment to the organization.