8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
1/69
Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor s Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
by
iYu
A Research Paper
Submitted n Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Master
of
Science Degree
n
Applied Psychology
Dr. Katherine Lui
r. Laura Barron
The Graduate School
University
of
Wisconsin-Stout
August, 2010
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
2/69
Author: Yu, Xi
The
Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie,
WI
Title: Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor s Leadership Style and
Employee Loyalty
Graduate Degree / Major: MS Applied Psychology
Research Adviser: Renee
Surdick
Ph.D.
Month
/ Year: August, 2010
Number of Pages: 69
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6
th
edition
Abstract
The XYZ Company in China was exploring potential problems between unsatisfied
2
employees and their supervisors. t appeared that a low level
of
loyalty exits between employees
and their supervisors, due to supervisor s leadership behaviors. This study examined the
relationship between supervisor s leadership styles and employee loyalty to supervisor among a
sample
of employees at the XYZ Company in China. This paper explored the correlations
between supervisor s leadership styles and employee loyalty
to
supervisor.
t
also explored the
prediction of supervisor s leadership styles on employee loyalty. The purpose of this study was
to provide recommendations for leadership improvement and organizational development.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire with 5 items was used in this study to measure
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
3/69
3
supervisor s leadership styles and behaviors. Loyalty to Supervisor Scale with
7
items was used
to measure employee loyalty to supervisor. The participants of this study consisted
of 65
employees who were working with different supervisors separately in nine different working
groups
in
the YZ Company. The results indicated that the variables were correlated with each
other differed
in
magnitude and direction. The results also showed that transformational
leadership and idealized attributes positively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor, but
passive or avoidant leadership negatively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
4/69
The Graduate School
University o Wisconsin Stout
Menomonie WI
Acknowledgments
There are many people that I would like to acknowledge for their support and
encouragement for me. Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Renee Surdick, and my committee
members, Dr. Lui and Dr. Barron, for their constant commitments to assisting me in my
academic endeavors. Their expertise and knowledge are greatly appreciated. Secondly, I would
like to thank all o the instructors in Master o Science-Applied Psychology program for their
commitments and sincerity in their instruction. Their supports and helps for me, an international
4
student, are greatly appreciated. Thirdly, I would like to thank the participants
o
this study, who
helped me achieve the success o this study. Finally, I would like to thank my family, my cohorts
in this program, and my friends for their constant encouragement and supports during the
demanding but happy process o my study for Master Degree.
Thank you all sincerely
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
5/69
5
Table o ontents
Abstract 2
List
o Tables 7
Chapter I: Introduction 8
Statement
o
the Problem 8
Purpose o the Study 9
Research Questions 9
Assumptions
o
the Study 9
Definition
o
Terms 10
Limitations
o
the Study
11
Methodology
12
Chapter II: Literature Review
13
Conceptual Background 13
Theory and Previous Studies 18
Chapter
III
Methodology 26
Subject Selection and Description 26
Instrumentation 26
Data Collection Procedures 30
Data Analysis
31
Limitations 31
Summary 32
Chapter IV: Results 33
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
6/69
6
Descriptive Analysis
Correlation Analysis 35
Regression Analysis 42
Chapter V: Discussion 46
Conclusions 46
Limitations 48
Recommendations 49
Future Research 52
References 55
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter 58
Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 59
Appendix C: Loyalty to Supervisor Scale 62
Appendix
:
Institutional Review Board Form 64
Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Approval 69
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
7/69
7
ist of Tables
Table
:
Means
M)
and Standard Deviations SD)
of
the Study Variables N =
65 .
. 34
Table 2: Correlation Coefficients for the Study
Variables . . 36
Table
3:
Regression Analysis
of
the Effects
of
Leadership Factors
on
Loyalty to
Supervisor. .. . . . . 43
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
8/69
8
hapter
I
Introduction
Building effective relationship between supervisors and employees holds potential for
strengthening the commitment to the workplace and specifically its leadership. This study
explored the relationship between supervisor s leadership style and employee loyalty among a
group
o
employees at the XYZ Company
in
China. Specifically, the research examined the
cOlTelations between supervisor s leadership styles and employee loyalty, and how specific
leadership behaviors would predict employee s loyalty
to
their supervisors. The results o the
study were intended
to
provide insights on how
to
increase supervisor s leadership skills
in
order
to
improve employee loyalty and build a harmony within the working environment.
Statement
o
the Problem
Based on the information presented to the researcher, the management
o
the XYZ
Company was facing a managerial problem
o
unsatisfied relations between employees and their
supervisors. According
to
the statements
o
Manager
o
Marketing Department
at
the XYZ
Company (personal communication, Feburary 18 2010), it indicated that some employees did
not want
to
continue working with the current supervisor in the working group, but they did not
consider leaving the company. The potential problem was that employees reported their
dissatisfaction with their relationships with the supervisor possibly due to the leadership
behaviors. Employees might not be adapting to certain leadership behaviors resulting in low
level
o
employee loyalty to their supervisor. This problem might have influenced the employee s
performance, working productivity and the working environment in the company.
The supervisor is very important
for
employees, because they often interact with employees
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
9/69
9
on a daily basis and conduct the procedures o organizational activities with the followers (Chen,
Tsui, Farh, 2002) . This study focused on the leadership behaviors
o
the supervisors, explored
its relationship with employee loyalty, and provided recommendations for plans and strategies
o
improving supervisor s leadership skills.
Purpose o the Study
This study explored the relationship between supervisor s leadership styles and employee
loyalty in order to provide some recommendations for the company s organizational
development and leadership skills improvement related to employees. This study examined the
extent
o
correlations between employee loyalty and supervisor s leadership styles for improving
supervisor s leadership skills and the relationships between employees and supervisors. This
study was critical to the success o human resources management, employee performance
improvement, and organizational development.
Research Questions
The first research question
o
this study was how leadership style and loyalty to supervisor
correlated with each other, including the correlations between specific behavioral factors
o
each
leadership style and specific dimensions
o
loyalty to supervisor.
The second research question o this study was how leadership styles and factors predicted
employee loyalty to supervisor for providing recommendations on strategies
o
leadership
improvements at the XYZ Company.
ssumptions o the Study
In this study, the relationships between the supervisor s leadership and employee loyalty
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
10/69
1
were explored. Specifically, it examined how leadership styles and specific leadership behaviors
predicted employee loyalty to supervisors and specific dimensions
of
loyalty. The results of this
study summarized effective strategies
of
improving leadership skills to improve the relationships
between supervisors and their employees. The hypotheses of this study were presented below.
i
(a): There is a positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee
loyalty to supervisor, specifically with the dimension of employee s attachment to supervisor.
H2 (a): Contingent reward and intellectual stimulation behaviors positively cOlTelate with
employee s attachment to supervisor.
H2 (b) : Active management-by-exception and the passive management-by-exception
negatively correlate with employee s attachment to supervisor.
H2 (c): Individual consideration positively correlates with employee loyalty to supervisor.
H3: There is a positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee s
internalization
of
supervisor s values.
H4 (a): Idealized influence and contingent reward positively predict employee loyalty to
supervisors.
H4 (b): Active management-by-exception and Laissez-faire behaviors negatively predict
employee loyalty to supervisor.
efinition o Terms
Transformational
leadership. t is a leadership that is defined as creating positive and
challengeable changes among the followers (Bass, 1985). A transformational leader focuses on
making followers to help each other, to take care
of
each other, to be harmonious and
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
11/69
encouraging, and to view the organization as a whole Bass, 1985).
Transactional leadership. It describes the leaders who focus on a series
of
transactions
of
daily practice in
work
flow Bass, 1985). The transactional leaders emphasize
on
building a
relationship with followers
on
exchanging benefits, and clarifying the rewards and punishments
with a sense
of
responsibility to achieve accomplishments Bass, 1985).
Passive / Avoidant leadership t
describes the leaders who avoid clarifying performance
expectations, specifying agreements and deviations, and stating
work
goals and requirements to
be achieved by followers Bass, 1985).
Employee loyalty
t
supervisor
t
describes the degree to which the employees or
followers are committed for their work and their supervisors, including realizing their personal
responsibility for the work and their intentions
of
seeking new job opportunities Coughlan,
2005).
Supervisors
In this study, supervisors are the people who are responsible for the working
groups in Marketing Department in the organization and have seven or eight employees working
for them in the group.
Limitations o the Study
One
of
the main limitations
of
the study was
how
culture impacted the relationship between
supervisors and employees. The study was conducted in China, so it
might
be important to
consider the values and beliefs
of
Chinese culture and
how
it impacted the roles
of
individuals
within the workplace.
he
results
of
this current study were possibly different from previous
research that was conducted under the background
of
other cultures.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
12/69
Another main limitation was the employees individual factors, for example, gender, age,
personality, and personal preferences. These factors might affect employee s leadership
perceptions on their supervisors.
ethodology
The participants in this study were 65 employees who were working with different
supervisors separately in different working groups in the Marketing Department at the
YZ
Company in China.
Multifactor Leadership QuestiOImaire (MLQ), 3
rd
edition (Bass Avolio, 2004), with 45
items was used to measure supervisors leadership styles and behaviors. MLQ measures
individual leadership styles ranging from passive or avoidant leadership, to transactional
leadership, and to transformational leadership (Bass Avolio, 2004). Loyalty to Supervisor
Scale (LS) (Chen, Tsui, Farh, 2002) with 7 items was used to measure employee loyalty to
2
their supervisor.
t
measures the five dimensions of loyalty to supervisor, including dedication to
supervisor, extra effort for supervisor, attachment to supervisor, identification with supervisor,
and internalization of supervisor s values (Chen et al., 2002).
Regarding to the data collection procedures, each participant received an email package
including surveys, informed consent form, and instructions for surveys. They were asked to
complete the documents followed by the instructions. Confidentiality was strictly maintained and
the data collected was only used for this study. Regarding to the data analysis approach, SPSS
was used to explore the relationships between variables and the predictors for employee loyalty
to their supervisors. Correlation analysis and mUltiple regression analysis were explored . As the
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
13/69
3
results, the correlations between variables and predictions
o
supervisor s leadership on
employee loyalty were presented.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
14/69
4
Chapter II Literature Review
Conceptual ackground
Regarding
t
leadership, a full range model
o
leadership was developed
t
measure the
leadership styles (Bass Avolio, 2004). The full range model provided the basis for assessing
leadership behaviors with a comprehensive vision (Kleinman, 2004). The full range model
consisted o transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and passive or avoidant
leadership, including specific behaviors under each category (Bass Avolio, 2004).
Transformational leadership was firstly developed by Burns in 1978. Transformational
leaders would encourage followers to make great changes personally and also generated great
changes and challenges for the organization (Burns, 1978). Bass (1985) proposed a broader
vision o transformational leadership, which was to motivate followers t produce changes
beyond expectations.
Transformational leadership behaviors included the following specific aspects (Bass
Avolio, 2004).
Idealized attributes leadership (IA) describes the leaders who instill pride in associates who
worked for them and go beyond self-interest t do good for the group (Bass Avolio, 2004).
Idealized behaviors leadership (IB) describes the leaders who state about their most
important values and beliefs, and specify the importance o having a strong sense o purpose
(Bass Avolio, 2004).
Inspirational motivation leadership (lM) describes the leaders who motivate the followers
by providing demands and challenges t their followers work (Bass Avolio, 2004).
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
15/69
5
Intellectual stimulation leadership (IS) describes the leaders who stimulate their followers
effort and encourage them to be creative by challenging using questions, assumptions, reframed
problems, and presenting old situations in new ways (Bass Avolio, 2004). Intellectual
stimulation leadership focuses on how followers are encouraged to think about former problems
in creative ways. Under this leadership, the followers are able to be exposed to a broader vision
of the problems, be aware of innovation when problem solving, and generate creative solutions
for the problems (Bass Avolio, 2004) .
Individual Consideration leadership (IC) describes the leaders who pay more attentions
to
each individual s needs for accomplishments of jobs and their personal growth (Bass Avolio,
2004). Under this leadership, the leaders or supervisors are more likely to act as a coach or a
mentor (Bass Avolio, 2004). Individual consideration describes how the leader instills power
by acting as a coach or a mentor and holds a people-oriented vision and attitude for the
follower s development (Bass Avolio, 2004).
The characteristics of transformational leadership include increasing confidence and
motivation, clarifying follower s directions
of
work in obtaining organizational goals, sharing
beliefs and benefits, and being open to employee s feedback and suggestions (Bums, 1978). The
theory of transformational leadership presented that it is related to the effects on jo satisfaction
and organizational commitment (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders emphasize on enhancing
the motivation and performance for the followers. The followers under transformational
leadership would feel loyalty, trust, and respect towards their leaders and they would make more
efforts than they are expected for the leaders or supervisor when working (Bass, 1985).
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
16/69
6
Specifically, transformational leaders are viewed as who have powers on employees with
individual considerations, inspirations, intellectually stimulations, and personal development
Bass Avolio, 2004). Transformational leadership shows strong influences on relationship
between leaders and followers that instills power for achieving performance objectives and work
goals Bums, 1978).
Transactional leadership was firstly proposed by Burns in 1978, which focuses on the
exchanging benefits to satisfy the needs
o
both side
o
followers and leaders. Bass 1985)
proposed a refined vision
o
transactional leadership, which emphasizes rewards exchanging on a
basis o leader-follower relationships.
Transactional leadership focuses more on daily practices o work transactions Burns, 1978).
Transactional leaders set up working goals and agreements with the followers in order to achieve
target objectives Bass Avolio, 2004). They also clarify the compensation and rewards that
would be offered to the followers when they succeed to accomplish certain tasks Bass Avolio,
2004).
Transactional leadership is labeled as the following specific behaviors Bass Avolio,
2004).
Contingent reward leadership CR) refers to the leadership behavior o clarifying
expectations from the followers Bass Avolio, 2004). Under this leadership, followers are
offered with recognitions and rewards when working goals are obtained on a basis o pay
exchanging Bass Avolio, 2004).
Active management-by-exception leadership MBEA) describes the leaders who specify the
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
17/69
7
detailed requirements and standards for work flow, and the punishments that would be executed
when the followers perform ineffectively and go beyond the standards (Bass Avolio, 2004).
Passive
or
avoidant leadership describes the leaders who avoid getting involved in the work
progress and decision making (Bass Avolio, 2004). hey would not like to clarify agreements
and expectations
of
work for the followers . Goals and standards
of
tasks are not clearly presented
for the followers (Bass Avolio, 2004). This leadership style consists
of
passive
management-by-exception leadership and Laissez-faire leadership as presented below.
Passive management-by-exception leadership (MBEP) refers to the leaders who avoid being
involved until the problems become more serious and wait with no actions until things go wrong
before taking actions (Bass Avolio, 2004) . Leaders who display passive
management-by-exception will not interfere into problem solving until followers suffer from
certain serious deviations or wrongs (Bass Avolio,
2004).
Laissez-faire leadership (LF) refers to the leaders who avoid interfering when serious issues
arise (Bass Avolio, 2004). Bass and Avolio (2004) also describe this leadership as
non-leadership.
Employee loyalty to supervisor is a concept that describes the degree to which the
employees or followers are committed for their work and their supervisors, including realizing
their personal responsibility for the work and whether they tend to look for new job opportunities
or not (Coughlan, 2005).
Chen, Tusi, and Farh (2002) forwarded that loyalty to supervisor refers to the strength of a
follower's sense of identification, willingness to make extra efforts, attachment and dedication to
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
18/69
8
supervisors, and internalization to a supervisor's beliefs. Specifically, Chen et a . (2002)
proposed that the concept of loyalty to supervisor can be labeled and interpreted as the following
specific dimensions.
Dedication to supervisor (Ded.) refers to a follower's willingness to dedicate to the
supervisor and to protect the supervisor even their personal benefits are reduced (Chen et a .,
2002).
Extra effort for supervisor (Effort) indicates the follower's willingness to make more efforts
for the supervisor beyond expectations (Chen et a ., 2002).
Attachment to supervisor (Attach.) refers to a follower's desire and intention to follow the
supervisor, and their intention of continuing working with the supervisor or leaving (Chen et a .,
2002).
Identification with supervisor (Iden.) refers to the follower's sense of pride of being a
follower of the supervisor and their respects for the accomplishments
of
the supervisor (Chen et
a ., 2002).
Internalization
of
supervisor's values (Intern.) refers to the level of matching
of
values and
beliefs between the followers and the supervisors (Chen et a ., 2002).
Theory and revious Studies
A meta-analysis was conducted to examIne the predictors
of
employee loyalty and
satisfaction. The predictors were the economic and individual factors, the
jo
factors, and the
work environment factors (Karsh, Booske, Sainfort, 2005). The work environment factors
included supervisory relationship, leadership, stress advancement opportunity and participation
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
19/69
9
(Karsh et al., 2005). The work environment factors were significantly and positively associated
with employee loyalty and jo satisfaction (Karsh et al., 2005) .
A review
of
previous research suggested that the potential factors that might influence
employee loyalty focused on three areas, including personal characteristics of the individual,
group and organization efforts, and characteristics of other community members (Coughlan,
2005). Supervisor s leadership was one aspect of the characteristics of other community
members who were often interacting with the employees. In daily work, leaders interacted with
employees and often behaved with each other (Kleinman, 2004). Leadership styles would
directly improve followers loyalty t supervisors (Kleinman, 2004).
From the evidence above, it indicated that the close association between supervisor s
leadership styles and employee loyalty t supervisor.
Based on the concept of attachment t supervisor proposed above, which was one of the
dimensions
of
employee loyalty
t
supervisor, the attachment to supervisor referred to the
willingness of employee to work with the supervisors and their retentions or intentions
of
staying
with the
jo
and their supervisor (Chen, et al., 2002). Effective leadership was correlated with
greater work satisfaction and retentions from employees towards the supervisors (Shader et al.,
2001). Leadership was an important influencing component on employee s attachment t the
supervisors and organization (Ribelin, 2003).
Based on the research on Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, it showed that
transformational leadership was positively correlated with personal efficacy, employee
jo
satisfaction, beliefs
of
work, and organizational commitment in the collectivistic cultures (Bass
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
20/69
2
Avolio, 2004).
Many previous studies focused on the relationship between leadership styles and employees
retention. Volk and Lucas (1991) firstly demonstrated that the leadership style was the only
predictor of employee's retention and explained 32 of the variance n turnover. Effective
leadership styles were closely correlated with employee jo satisfaction and retention (Kleinman,
2004). Effective leadership was described as a comprehensive component influencing retention ,
and was viewed as an important factor of retention analysis and recruitment strategies (Kleinman,
2004).
Transformational leadership generated greater commitment n followers and greater
employee satisfaction and effectiveness than transactional leadership (Bass, 1998). The leaders
of transformational leadership were able to share visions of the future of the organization and
encourage innovations when problem solving (Bass Aviolo, 2004). Conversely, transactional
leaders focused on day-to-day operations of exchanging rewards on the basis of working
performance (Burns, 1978).
Past research suggested that transformational leadership was one of the most important
factors to control employee's retention (Bass, 1985). The influences
of
transformational
leadership on retention emphasized that effective leader behaviors could improve follower 's
positive attitudes and psychological attachment to the leaders. Transformational leaders also
could stimulate followers' sense of social identification by encouraging them to internalize the
organizational values and the beliefs of leaders (Bass, 1998).
Silvelihorne and Wang (2001) conducted a study on the relationships between leadership
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
21/69
2
styles and employee productivity. Employee productivity could be described form aspects
of
turnover, retention, profitability, quality of employee performance, and products produced
(Silverthorne Wang,
200
I).
There
was close associations between the employee productivity
factors and leadership styles.
From what previous research showed above, hypothesis could be assumed that there is a
significant and positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee loyalty to
supervisor, especially with the dimension of
employee s attachment to supervisor.
Although the positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee loyalty
were explored, different specific leadership behaviors had different effects on employee s loyalty
to supervisor, and different associations with different
dimension
within employee loyalty to
supervisor.
Although
there was a positive correlation between transformational leadership and
employee attachment to supervisor, transformational leadership and transactional leadership had
been both viewed as effective and positive forms
of
leadership styles (Bass Avolio, 2004).
Celia in transactional leadership factors would influence
on employee
loyalty and employee job
satisfaction. t was also not clear which specific leadership behaviors influenced most to
employee job satisfaction or loyalty (Kleinman, 2004) . Some previous studies offered evidence
regarding of the influence of specific leadership behaviors on
employee
loyalty and job
satisfaction.
Kleinman (2004)
conducted
a research to explore the relationship between leadership
behaviors and staff
nurse retention. The results showed that active management-by-exception
of
transactional leadership was negatively associated with
staff
nurse retention (Kleinman, 2004).
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
22/69
22
Bass and Avolio (2004) described contingent reward as an effective leadership form for
motivating followers. Under the leadership of contingent reward, the leaders and the followers
focused on what they need to achieve and the rewards that the followers would obtain when
completing the work goals (Bass Avolio, 2004). Contingent reward leadership behaviors
improved employee's psychological attachment and organizational commitment by motivating
employees to engage in challenging themselves during the work (Bass Avolio, 2004).
Nguni , Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) used an experiment to examine the effects of
transformational and transactional leadership on teacher's
jo
satisfaction and commitment in a
developing country. They collected the data on teacher's intentions
of
leaving the
jo
and their
satisfaction level on managerial leadership (Nguni et aI., 2006). The analysis showed that the
transformational and transactional factors explained 33
of
the variance in jo satisfaction
(Nguni et aI , 2006). Specifically, intellectual stimulation and contingent reward were positively
related to staff's attachment to their leaders (Nguni et aI., 2006) .
There was an experiment conducted by Chen, Beck, and Amos (2005) to explore the
relationships between leadership styles and employee's intentions to leave their supervisors. The
results presented that employees were more willing to work with supervisors who practiced the
contingent reward
of
transactional leadership styles and individual consideration
of
transformational leadership styles (Chen et aI , 2005). There was a negative correlation between
passive management-by-exception behaviors and employee attachment to the supervisors (Chen
et aI., 2005).
From the previous research and studies, the assumed hypotheses could be that contingent
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
23/69
23
reward and intellectual stimulation behaviors were significantly positively correlated with
employee s attachment to supervisor; active management by exception and passive management
by exception behaviors were significantly negatively correlated
to
employee s attachment to
supervisor; and individual consideration was positively associated with employee loyalty to
supervisor.
Previous research showed that the effects of transformational leadership on employees
commitment and jo satisfaction reflected a psychological linkage between employees and
supervisors (Levinson, 1965). The linkage between employees and supervisors for exchanging
process could be demonstrated m transformational leadership (Levinson, 1965).
Transformational leadership could enhance the development
of
the linkage, and make the values
and beliefs
of
supervisors internalized to the employees (Gandz, 2007). Transformational leaders
could understand the values and beliefs of
the followers, and followers would understand the
values of supervisors and took jo responsibilities (Gandz, 2007).
From the implications of previous research, hypothesis could be assumed that there was a
significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and employee s
internalization of supervisor s values.
Shieh, Mills, and Waltz (2001) conducted a research about academic leadership style
predictors for nursing faculty
jo
satisfaction. The purpose of measuring jo satisfaction was to
explore the nursing staff s retention and intentions
of
leaving . High level
of
turnover among the
targeted samples reflected the nursing faculty s dissatisfaction with their
jo s
and their nursing
dean s leadership styles (Shieh et
aL
2001). The results showed that idealized influence,
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
24/69
4
intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward leadership styles significantly and positively
predicted
job
satisfaction. At the meantime, active management-by-exception significantly and
negatively predicted
job
satisfaction (Shieh
et
aI., 2001).
According to Chen and Barron's study (2006), the findings indicated that nurSIng
employees in Taiwan were more satisfied with leaders who practiced the leadership style
of
idealized attributes. The descriptive and cross-sectional study presented that idealized attributes
leadership significantly and positively predicted nursing faculty members loyalty level, but the
Laissez-faire leadership style significantly and negatively predicted nursing faculty
member s
loyalty level (Chen Barron, 2006).
From the implications of previous research, hypotheses could
be
made that idealized
influence and contingent reward positively predicted
employee s
loyalty to supervisors, but
active management-by-exception and Laissez-faire behaviors negatively predicted employee
loyalty to supervisor.
Hofstede s
(1997) proposed the dimensions
of
culture, including
power
distance,
collectivism versus individualism, femininity versus masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance.
Much
previous research was conducted
on
the impact
of
culture
on
the relationships between
leaders and followers. Culture played a significant role in the interactions between supervisors
and employees (Hofstede, 1997). Culture differences could influence the
follower s
supervisory
commitment (Trompenaars, 1993). Collectivistic culture, which was the type
of
Chinese culture,
emphasized the responsibilities and supports in the group from in-group members (Hofstede,
1997). Effective leadership would improve the team cohesions
among
team
members
and
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
25/69
25
enhanced followers loyalty to the leaders and the group (Chemers, 1997). In Chinese culture, the
relationship between leaders and followers emphasized the follower s loyalty to the supervisor
(Farh Cheng, 2000).
Cultural characteristics had positive impacts on employees loyalty to supervisor as stated in
literature. The Confucian traditions, which were the dominant thoughts in Chinese culture,
showed that the responsibilities and obligations were emphasized on loyalty for work and leaders
in the groups (Cheng, Jiang, Riley, 2003). According the research conducted by Redding in
1990, supervision in Chinese culture was greater than that in the Western culture, because
Chinese culture thought highly in the associations between supervisor and followers. n Chinese
context, supervisory commitment played a significant role in the management practices.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
26/69
6
Chapter III Methodology
Daily leadership is an important factor to affect employee s loyalty and job satisfaction.
Practicing different leadership styles can influence the levels
of
employee s attachment to their
supervisors. In this chapter, it described participants selection, instrumentations, data collection
procedures, data analysis , and limitations. Additionally, using the measure instruments, results
of
positive leadership behaviors could be known for leadership development strategies.
Subject Selection and Description
The participants consisted
of
65 employees who were working for supervisor separately in
different working groups at the
YZ
Company in China.
In this company, working groups were established in the Marketing Department to build a
competitive working environment in order to improve productivity. There was one supervisor
who was responsible for each working group, and there were seven or eight employees working
for the supervisor in the group.
Instrumentation
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), 3
r
edition, with 45 items was used to
measure supervisors leadership styles. The MLQ is the most used measurement
of
leadership in
organizations, originally developed by Bass (1985) and refined
by
Bass and Avolio (2004) to
measure factors of leadership constructed as the full range leadership model.
This instrument is widely used by previous research to measure transformational and
transactional leadership styles. t measures a broad range of leadership types, and helps leaders
discover how they measure their own leadership styles and how they are measured from the eyes
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
27/69
27
of
the people who they work with (Bass Avolio, 2004). MLQ includes Leader Form and Rater
Form , so data could be collected
on
the leadership perceptions from both sides
of
supervisors and
employees.
MLQ
measures
individual leadership styles
ranging
from passive leaders, to
transactional leaders, and to transformational leaders (Bass Avolio, 2004).
The
full range MLQ
measures transformational leadership from specific aspects of idealized attributes, idealized
behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass
& Avolio, 2004) . t measures transactional leadership from aspects of contingent reward, active
management-by-exception
(Bass
Avolio, 2004). t
measures avoidant or
passive leadership
from specific aspects of passive management-by-exception, and Laissez-faire leadership (Bass
Avolio, 2004). t also measures outcome of leadership from the aspects
of
extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leadership .
The MLQ
with 45 items was used to measure leadership styles and behaviors, anchored
from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Frequently,
if
not always).
Corresponding
to
each
specific leadership
behaviors, the participants were required to judge how frequently each statement fitted the
person they were describing. Specifically, there are 4 items measuring the sub scale
of
idealized
attributes, for example, participants were required to describe how frequently the supervisor they
were rating Instills pride in me for being associated with him
or
her. (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p.
106). There are 4 items
measuring
the subscale
of
idealized behaviors, for example, participants
were required to describe
how
frequently the supervisor they were rating Emphasizes the
importance of having a collective sense of mission. (Avolio Bass, 2004, p 107). There are 4
items measuring the sub scale of inspirational motivation, for example, participants were required
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
28/69
to describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating Talks enthusiastically about what
needs to be accomplished. (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 106). There are 4 items measuring the
subscale
of
intellectual stimulation, for example, participants
were
required to describe
how
frequently the supervisor they
were
rating Re-examines critical assumptions to question
whether they are appropriate. (Avolio & Bass, 2004,
p
106).
There
are 4 items measuring the
28
subscale
of
individual consideration, for example, participants
were required
to describe
how
frequently the
supervisor
they
were
rating
Considers me
as
having
different needs, abilities, and
aspirations from others. (Avolio & Bass, 2004,
p
107).
There
are 4 items measuring the
subscale
of
contingent reward, for example, participants were required to describe how
frequently the supervisor they were rating Makes clear what
one
can expect to receive when
performance goals are
achieved.
(Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 107).
There
are 4 items measuring
the subscale
of
active
management-by-exception,
for example, participants were required to
describe
how
frequently the
supervisor
they were rating
Focuses
attention
on
ilTegularities,
mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards. (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 106). There are 4
items measuring the subscale
of
passive management-by-exception, for example, participants
were required to describe how frequently the supervisor they
were
rating Demonstrates that
problems must
become
chronic before I take action. (Avolio & Bass,
2004, p
107). There are 4
items measuring the subscale
of
Laissez-faire leadership, for
example,
participants were required
to describe how frequently
the
supervisor they
were
rating
Avoids getting
involved
when
important issues arise. (Avolio & Bass, 2004,
p
107). There are 3 items measuring the subscale
of
extra effort, for example, participants were required to describe how frequently the supervisor
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
29/69
they were rating Gets me to do more than I expected to do. (Avolio Bass, 2004, p 107).
There are 4 items measuring the subscale
of
effectiveness, for example, participants were
required
to
describe how frequently the supervisor they were rating Is effective in meeting
29
organizational requirements. (Avolio Bass, 2004, p 107). There are 2 items measuring the
subscale of satisfaction, for example, participants were required to describe how frequently the
supervisor they were rating Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying. (Avolio Bass,
2004, p 107; The alpha coefficients for total items and for each subscale range from .74 to .94).
Loyalty
to
Supervisor Scale (LS) (Chen et aI., 2002) with
17
items was used
to
measure
employee loyalty to their supervisor. he LS was created by Chen, Tsui, and Farh in 2002 for the
research on relationships between employee performance and loyalty
to
supervisor commitment
and organizational commitment. he authors used exploratory factors analyzed to examine the
structure of the scale (Chen et aI., 2002) . The scale measures five factors or dimensions of
loyalty to supervisor, including dedication to supervisor, extra effort for supervisor, attachment
to
supervisor, identification with supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values (Chen et aI.,
2002) .
Loyalty to Supervisor Scale (LS) was used to measure employee loyalty to their supervisor,
anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Corresponding
to
each dimension,
participants were required to present their agreement on each statement. Specifically, there are 4
items measuring the dimension of dedication to supervisor, for example, participants were
required to present their agreement on When somebody speaks ill of my supervisor, I will
defend him or her immediately. (Chen et aI., 2002, p 346; he alpha co efficient of this
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
30/69
30
dimension was .72).
There
are 3 items measuring the dimension of
extra
effort for supervisor, for
example, participants
were
required to present their agreement on
Even
if my supervisor
is
not
present, I will try my best to do the
job
assigned by him or her well.
(Chen
et al., 2002,
p
346;
The
alpha coefficient
of
this dimension was .83) . There are 4 items measuring the dimension of
attachment to supervisor, for example, participants were required to present their agreement on
No matter whether it will benefit me or not, I will be willing to
continue
working under my
supervisor. (Chen et al. , 2002, p. 346;
The
alpha coefficient
of
this dimension was .80). There
are 3 items measuring the
dimension
of
identification with supervisor, for
example
, participants
were required to present their agreement on When someone praises my supervisor, I take
it
as a
personal compliment.
(Chen et
aI., 2002, p. 346; The alpha coefficient
of
this dimension
was .71). There are 3 items measuring the dimension
of
internalization
of
supervisor 's values, for
example, participants were required to present their agreement on
My
attachment to my
supervisor is primarily based
on
the similarity
of
my values and those represented by
my
supervisor. (Chen et al., 2002,
p
346; The alpha coefficient of this dimension was .70).
Data ollection Procedures
This study was reviewed and approved by UW-Stout Institutional
Review
Board for the
Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB) . Participants received an email package
including the surveys
of
MLQ rater form and LS scale, informed consent form, and the
instructions for completing the documents. Participants were asked to
consider
participating this
research, and then sign the consent form if they would like to palticipate. They were requested to
print the surveys and complete them. After completing, they
were
required to scan all of the
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
31/69
3
documents as PDF documents and email me back. Confidentiality was strictly maintained in this
study.
The
target company was referred as the
XYZ
Company. The
names of
participates were
not presented
on
the surveys. Participates were encouraged the participants not to discuss their
answers with colleagues or others in order to increase the likelihood
of
independent observation.
The data collected was only used for this study. All the documents collected from the participants
were destroyed after this study.
ata
Analysis The Statistical Program for Social Sciences version 16.0 SPSS) was used to
analyze the data to explore the relationships between the variables.
The
data outliers and missing
data were cleared. Data analysis approaches included correlation analysis and multiple regression
analysis. o assess the correlations between leadership styles and loyalty to supervisor,
correlation analysis was applied. o examine the prediction of leadership styles on loyalty to
supervisor, multiple regression analysis was applied. The results presented the correlations
between specific leadership behaviors and different loyalty dimensions, and
how
the predictors
ofleadership styles and behaviors affected and predicted
employee s
loyalty to supervisor.
Limitations
One of the limitations was that the employees and supervisors were asked to complete the
surveys individually without any supervision. In this way, some participants would be possible to
discuss the answers with other col leagues or co-workers, which may have affected the validity
of
the survey responses.
The other limitation was the limited sample size. Limited conclusions and generalizations
could be made. Because the target participants were in a certain
company
and the purpose
of
this
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
32/69
32
study was to help the company solve the managerial problems the appropriate participants were
limited. Generalization
o
this research topic was difficult to make to other fields. However the
6 target participants were all the employees in Marketing Department the results were very
reliable and valid for this study.
ummary
This chapter described about selection and description
o
participants.
t
described the
detailed information
o
the instrumentations used in this study including Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire and Loyalty to Supervisor.
t
also introduced specific data collection procedures
and data analysis approaches. Limitations
o
data collection procedures were also presented in
this chapter.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
33/69
33
hapter
IV
Results
In this study, the surveys
of
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Loyalty to
Supervisor Scale were given to
65
participates in the
YZ
Company in China to examine the
relationships between supervisor's leadership styles and employee's loyalty to their supervisor,
and how the leadership styles affected and predicted employee loyalty. The return rate of the
survey was 100 . The results and implications
of
this study provided recommendations for the
YZ Company to increase the supervisor's leadership skills in order to improve employee's
loyalty. Descriptive analysis, correlations, and regression analysis were used to explore the
predicted hypotheses.
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations of the scores of the employees' for all the variables in the
study were presented in Table 1.
From the Table
1
it indicated that mean scores of transformational leadership M
=
2.37),
transactional leadership M 2.45) and each behavioral factor in it were above the midpoint of
2.00 on the rating scale. The mean scores of passive or avoidant leadership M 1.15) and each
behavioral factor were all below the midpoint
of
2.00. Overall, supervisors' leadership
on
the
MLQ factor scales in
YZ
Company produced a more positive profile of transformational and
transactional leadership than passive or avoidant leadership.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
34/69
34
Table 1
Means M) nd Standard Deviations SD)
of
he Study Variables N
65)
Leadership Style M SD
Transformational leadership
2.37
.51
Idealized attributes CIA
2.56 .68
Idealized behaviors lB)
2.31
.69
Inspirational motivation 1M)
2.57
.65
Intellectual stimulation IS)
2.24
.63
Individual consideration lC)
2.18 .67
Transactional leadership
2.45
.49
Contingent reward CR)
2.49 .57
Active management-by-exception MBEA)
2.42 .68
Passive / Avoidant leadership
l.15
.68
Passive management-by-exception MBEP) l.26 .84
Laissez-faire LF)
l.03 .67
Loyalty Total 4.49 .96
Dedication Ded.) 4.40
l.25
Extra effort Effort)
5.96 .88
Attachment Attach.)
3.95
l.35
Identification lden.)
3.88 l.37
Internalization
of
val ues Intern.) 4.27
l.38
In Table
1,
it also
showed
that the mean scores
of employees
general loyalty status to
supervisor were also above the midpoint
of 4.00 M 4.49) . Generally, employees thought
positively about the extent to which they experienced their loyalty to the supervisors . Regarding
the specific dimensions, the results showed that the mean scores
of
dedication
M
4.40),
extra
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
35/69
5
effoli M = 5.96 , and internalization M = 4.27 were above the midpoint of 4.00, but the mean
scores of attachment M
=
3.95 and identification M
=
3.88 were slightly below the midpoint
of
4.00.
The mean score
of
extra effort was the highest
among
the dimensions. In addition, the
mean score
of
attachment to supervisor was below midpoint. t reflected the managerial problem
of
the XYZ Company, which some employees in the working groups were not satisfied with their
supervisors and intended to leave their current working groups and transferred to another.
Correlation nalysis
The
relations
between
the variables model were
examined
by means
of
Pearson correlation
analysis presented in Table 2 below.
Transformational leadership M
=
2.37, SD
=
.51 strongly and positively correlated with
employee s loyalty to supervisor
M=
4.49, SD
=
.96 ,
r 63) =
.584,
P
.Ol. And also, there was
a positive correlation between transformational leadership
M =
2.37,
SD =
.51 and dedica tion to
supervisor
M
= 4.40,
SD
=
l.23),
r 63)
= .416,
p
.Ol.
There
was a strong and positive
correlation
between
transformational leadership M
=
2 .37, SD = .51 and attachment to
supervisor M = 3.95, SD = 1.35 , r 63) = .636, .01. There was a positive correlation between
transformational leadership M
=
2.37, SD
=
.51 and identification with supervisor M
=
3.88,
SD
=
1.37 ,
r 63) =
.359, p .01. There was a strong and positive correlation between
transformational leadership
M =
2.37,
SD =
.51 and internalization
of
the supervisor s values
M =
4.27,
SD =
l.38),
r 63) =
.641,
P
.Ol. However, there was no significant correlation
between transformational leadership
M=
2.37,
SD =
.51 and extra effort
M=
5.96,
SD =
.88
for supervisor,
r 63) =
.072,
p >
.05 .
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
36/69
36
Table 2
Correlation Coefficients for the Study Variables
Leadership Style Ded. Effort Attach. Iden. Intern. Loyalty
Transformational leadership .416 * * .072 .636** .359** .641 .584**
IA
.502**
.198
.523 * * .354** .488** .552**
IB
.261 *
.018
.481 * * .309* .533** .445 * *
1M
.476**
.216 .550** .396** .513 * * .576**
IS .
21
-.069 .482 .195 .466** .365**
IC .156 -.089
.424**
.128 .474** .315 *
Transactional leadership
.188 .035 .408** .207
.509** .373**
CR
.385**
.196
.457* * .366** .578** .524**
MBEA
-.051 -.115
.208 .019
.253*
.101
Passive / Avoidant leadership -.400** - .426** -.120 -.207 -.182 - .326* *
MBEP
-.346** -.310* - .103 -.203 -.193 -.288*
LF
-.308** -.477**
- .114
-.166 -.128 -.301*
p .05
**p
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
37/69
37
attachment to supervisor M
=
3.95, SD
=
1.35), r 63)
=
.523, P .01. There was a positive
correlation with idealized attributes M = 2.56, SD = .68) and identification with supervisor M =
3.88, SD
=
1.37),
r 63)
=
.354,
p
.01. There was a positive correlation between idealized
attributes M
=
2.56, SD
=
.68) and internalization of the supervisor s values M
=
4.27, S
=
1.38), r 63)
=
.488, p .01, but there was no significant correlation between idealized attributes
M= 2.56, SD
=
.68) and extra effOlis for supervisor M= 5.96, SD
=
.88), r 63)
=
.198,p
>
. .
Idealized behaviors M = 2.31,
S
= .69) positively correlated with loyalty to supervisor M.
=
4.49, SD
=
.96),
r 63)
=
445,
p
.01. There was also a positive correlation between idealized
behaviors M = 2.31, SD = .69) and dedication to supervisor M = 4.40, SD = 1.23), r 63) = .261,
p .05. There was a strong and positive correlation between idealized behaviors M = 2.31, SD
=
.69) and attachment to supervisor M= 3.95, SD
=
1.35), r 63)
=
.481,p .01. There was a
positive correlation between idealized behaviors M
=
2.31, SD
=
.69) and identification with
supervisor
M =
3.88, SD
=
1.37), r 63)
=
.309, p .05. There was a strong and positive
correlation between idealized behaviors
M
= 2.31, S = .69) and internalization of the
supervisor s values
M = 4.27,
S
= 1.38),
r 63)
= .533,
P
.01. However, there was no
significant correlation between idealized behaviors
M
= 2.31, SD = .69) and extra effort for
supervisor M= 5.96, SD = .88),
r 63)
=
.018,p
> .05.
Inspirational motivation M = 2.57, SD = .65) strongly and positively correlated with loyalty
to supervisor M
=
4.49, S
=
.96), r 63)
=
.576, P .01. There was also a positive correlation
between inspirational motivation M
=
2.57, SD
=
.65) and dedication to supervisor M
=
4.40,
SD = 1.23), r 63) = .476, p .01. There was a strong and positive correlation between
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
38/69
8
inspirational motivation M = 2.57,
SD
= .65) and attachment to supervisor M = 3.95,
SD =
1.35), r 63) = .550, p .01. There was a positive correlation between inspirational motivation
M
= 2.57,
SD
= .65) and identification with supervisor
M
= 3.88, SD = 1.37),
r 63)
= .396,
p
.01.
There was a strong and positive correlation between inspirational motivation M = 2.57, SD = .65)
and internalization o the supervisor s values M = 4.27, SD = 1.38), r 63) = .513, p .01.
However, there was no significant correlation between inspirational motivation
M
= 2.57, SD
= .65) and extra effort with supervisor M = 5.96, SD = .88), r 63) = .216, p > .05.
Intellectual stimulation
M
= 2.24,
SD
= .63) strongly and positively correlated with loyalty
to supervisor M = 4.49, SD = .96), r 63) = .365, p .01. There was also a positive correlation
between intellectual stimulation M = 2.24, SD = .63) and attachment to supervisor M = 3.95,
SD = 1.35), r 63) = .482, p .01. There was a positive correlation between intellectual
stimulation M = 2.24,
SD
= .63) and internalization
o
the supervisor s values M = 4.27,
SD
1.38), r 63) = .466, p .01. However, there was no correlation between intellectual stimulation
and dedication to supervisor, intellectual stimulation and extra effort for supervisor, and
intellectual stimulation and identification with supervisor.
Individual consideration
U\
= 2.18, SD = .67) positively correlated with loyalty to
supervisor M = 4.49, SD = .96), r 63) = .315, p .05. There was also a positive correlation
between individual consideration M = 2.18, SD = .67) and attachment to supervisor M = 3.95,
SD = 1.35), r 63) = .424, p .01. There was a positive correlation between individual
consideration M= 2.18,
SD =
.67) and internalization
o
the supervisor s values
M=
4.27, SD
=
1.38), r 63)
=
.408,p .01. However, there was no correlation between individual consideration
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
39/69
39
and
dedication
to
superVisor, individual consideration and extra effort for superVisor,
and
individual consideration and identification with supervisor.
Transactional leadership
(M
=
2.45,
SD
=
.49) positively correlated with loyalty
to
supervisor
M =
4.49,
SD =
.96), 1 (63)
=
.373,
p
.01. There was also a positive correlation
between transactional leadership
M =
2.45,
SD =
.49) and attachment to supervisor M
=
3.95,
SD =
1.35), 1 (63)
=
.408,
p
01 There was a positive correlation between transactional
leadership
M =
2.45,
SD
= .49) and internalization
o
the supervisor s values
M
= 4.27,
SD
1.38),
1 (63)
=
.509,
p
.01. However, there was
no
correlation between transactional leadership
and dedication to supervisor, individual consideration and extra effort for supervisor, and
individual consideration and identification with supervisor.
Contingent reward M = 2.49,
SD
= .57) strongly and positively correlated with loyalty to
supervisor
M =
4.49,
SD =
.96), 1 (63)
=
.524,
p
.01. There was also a positive correlation
between contingent reward
M
=
2.49,
SD
=
.57) and dedication
to
supervisor
M
=
4.40,
SD
1.23),1 (63) =
.385,
p
.01. There was a positive correlation between contingent reward
M
=
2.49, SD =
.57) and attachment to supervisor
M=
3.95,
SD = 1.35),1 (63) = .457,p 01
There
was a positive correlation with contingent reward
M
=
2.49,
SD =
.57) and identification with
supervisor
M = 3.88, SD
=
1.37),1 (63)
=
.336, p .01. There was a positive correlation between
contingent reward
M=
2.49,
SD =
.57) and internalization
o
the supervisor s values M=
4.27,
SD =
1.38), 1 (63)
=
.578,
p
.01. However, there was no significant correlation between
contingent reward
M =
2.49,
SD =
.57) and extra efforts for supervisor M
=
5.96,
SD =
.88),
1 (63)
=
.196,
p
> .05.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
40/69
40
Active management-by-exception did not significantly correlate with loyalty to supervisor.
Specifically, there was no significant correlation between active management-by-exception and
all the dimensions
o
loyalty
to
supervisor, except internalization
o
supervisor s values. active
management-by-exception M = 2.42,
SD
= .68) positively correlated with internalization o
supervisor
M=
4.27, SD = 1.38),
r 63)
=
.253,p
.05.
Passive or avoidant leadership
M =
1.15, SD
=
.68) strongly and negatively correlated with
loyalty to supervisor
M =
4.49, SD
=
.96),
r 63) =
-.524,
p
.01. There was also a negative
correlation between passive leadership
M
=
1.15,
SD
=
.68) and dedication to supervisor
M
=
4.40
SD =
1.23),
r 63) =
-.400,
p
.Ol. There was a negative correlation between passive
leadership M
=
1.15,
SD =
.68) and extra effort for supervisor M
=
5.96,
SD =
.88),
r 63)
-.426 p
.01. However, there was o significant correlation between passive leadership and
attachment; there was no significant correlation between passive leadership and identification
with supervisor. There was
o
significant correlation between passive leadership and
internalization o supervisor s values.
Passive management-by-exception M = 1.26, SD = .84) negatively correlated with loyalty
o supervisor M = 4.49,
SD
= .96),
r 63) =
-.288,
p
.05. There was also a negative correlation
between passive management-by-exception
M =
1.26,
SD =
.84) and dedication to supervisor
M =
4.40,
SD =
l.23),
r 63) =
-.346,
p
.01. There was a negative correlation between passive
management-by-exception
M =
1.26,
SD =
.84) and extra effort for supervisor
M =
5.96,
SD
=
.88),
r 63) =
-.310,
p
.05. However, there was no significant correlation between passive
management-by-exception and attachment. There was also no significant correlation between
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
41/69
4
passive management-by-exception and identification with supervIsor. There was also no
significant correlation between passive management-by-exception and internalization
of
supervisor s values.
Laissez-faire leadership M =
1.03, S
=
.67)
negatively correlated with loyalty
of
supervisor M =
4.49,
SD =
.96),
r 63) =
-.301,
P
.05.
There was also a negative correlation
between Laissez-faire leadership M =
l.26, SD
=
.84)
and dedication to supervisor
M
=
4.40,
S
=
l.23), r 63)
=
-.380,
P
0 l.
There was a negative correlation between Laissez-faire
leadership
M
=
1.26,
SD
=
.84)
and extra effort for supervisor
M
=
5.96,
SD
=
.88),
r 63)
-.477
P .01.
However, there was no significant correlation between Laissez-faire leadership
and attachment.
There
was no significant correlation between Laissez-faire leadership and
identification with supervisor.
There
was also no significant correlation between Laissez-faire
leadership and internalization
of
supervisor s values.
n
a summary, the results
of
correlation analysis indicated that transformational leadership,
transactional leadership and passive leadership all significant correlated with loyalty to
supervisor,
but
they differed in the magnitude and direction
of
their influence on the outcome
variables.
Transformational leadership had strong and positive correlations with
employee s
general
loyalty to supervisor, and strong positive with all the five dimensions
of
loyalty except extra
eff0l1 for supervisor.
The
group
of
specific behaviors factors
of
transformational leadership
positively correlated with loyalty to supervisor, specifically with attaclunent to supervisor and
internalization
of supervisor s
values. As predicted, these results were consistent with the
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
42/69
42
hypothesis 1 2 (c), 3 and parts
o
2 (a) that intellectual stimulation positively con-elated with
employee s attachment
to
supervisor.
Transactional leadership had moderate and positive correlations with employee s loyalty
to
supervisor, and positive con-elations with attachment
to
supervisor and internalization
o
supervisor s values. Specifically, contingent reward and active management-by-exception also
had moderate con-elations with attachment to supervisor and internalization
o
supervisor s
values. This result supported parts
o
hypothesis 2 (a) and 2 (b), which contingent reward
positively con-elated with employee s attachment to supervisor and active
management-by-exception negatively correlated with employee s attachment to supervisor.
Passive or avoidant leadership had negative correlations with employee s loyalty to
supervisor, and negative con-elations with dedication to supervisor and extra effort for
supervisors. Specifically, the sub-factors
o
passive management-by-exception and Laissez-faire
were also negatively correlated with dedication and extra effort to supervisors. However, these
results did not support a part
o
hypothesis 2 (b) that passive management-by-exception
negatively correlated with employee s attachment.
Regression nalysis
Multiple regression analysis was used to examine how the three main leadership styles
predicted employee s loyalty to supervisor presented in Table 3 below.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
43/69
4
Table 3
Regression Analysis o he Effects o Leadership Factors on Loyalty to Supervisor
Loyalty to Supervisor
Leadership Style
B SEB
Transformational leadershi p
1.247 .285
.665
IA .450 .182
.318
IB
.202
.186 .145
M
.398 .236 .269
IS .169
.224
.110
IC
-.136 .217
-.094
Transactional leadership -.326
.296
-.167
CR
.143 .271
.084
MBEA
-.278 -.160 -.196
Passive / Avoidant leadership -.313
.144 -.221
MBEP -.138 -.143 -.119
LF
-.123 -.182 -.085
p .05
p .01
In the results, they indicated that the predictors significantly predicted loyalty to supervisor
and explained a significant proportion of variance. 36.8 of variance in loyalty to supervisor
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
44/69
44
was accounted for by all the independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional
leadership and passive or avoidant leadership.
R2 =
.398,
F 3,
61
=
13.419,
P
.01. The
Adjusted
R
is .368 .
The
coefficients results
showed
that transformational leadership
M
= 2.37,
SD
= .51 can
positively predict
employee's
loyalty to supervisor M= 4.49, SD
=
.96 , f
=
.665, t 61)
=
4.376,
p .01. When the supervisor performs more transformational leadership, employees' loyalty to
the supervisor will increase. The results also showed that passive or avoidant leadership M
1.15, SD
=
.68 can negatively predict
employee's
loyalty to
supervisor
M
=
4.49,
SD
=
.96 ,
f
=
-.221, t 61) =
-2
.171,p
.05.
When
the supervisor performs more passive leadership,
employees'
loyalty to the supervisor will decrease. In addition, transactional leadership
M =
2.45,
SD =
.49
cannot predict loyalty to supervisor M
=
4.49,
SD =
.96 significantly, f
=
-.167,
t
61
=
-1.103,
p >
.05.
Specifically,
multiple regression
analysis was also
conducted on
the relationships between
the specific leadership behaviors and loyalty to supervisor in order to see how the factors
predicted employee's loyalty. The predictors included idealized attributes, idealized behaviors,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, contingent reward,
active management-by-exception, passive management-by-exception, and Laissez-faire
leadership.
The results showed that the predictors significantly predicted loyalty to supervisor and
explained a significant proportion of variance. 40.7 of variance in loyalty to supervisor was
accounted for by all the independent variables.
R2 =
.490, F 9, 55
=
5.878,p .01. The Adjusted
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
45/69
45
R
is .407.
From the coefficients results, they showed that idealized attributes
M
= 2.56, SD = .68) can
positively predict
employee s
loyalty to supervisor
( v
=
4.49,
SD
=
.96),
f
=
.318 ,
t 61)
=
2.474,
.05. t
indicated that
when
the supervisor performs more idealized attributes behaviors,
employees loyalty to the supervisor will increase. However, the other predictors cannot
significantly predict
employee s
loyalty to supervisor.
In a summary, multiple regression analysis indicated that , transformational leadership
positively predicted
employee
loyalty to superVIsor.
If
supervisors perform more
transformational leadership, the employees will have higher loyalty to the supervisor. Especially,
idealized attributes positively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor. As predicted, this result
supported a part
of
hypothesis 4 (a). Employees prefer to idealized attributes leadership
behaviors from their supervisor because it can increase their level
of
loyalty toward the
supervisor.
But
the results did not support the hypothesis
of
contingent reward predicting loyalty
to supervisor.
For
the other part
of
hypothesis 4 (a), which
was
that contingent reward positively
predicted loyalty to supervisor, was not supported in this current study. Plus, passive or avoidant
leadership negatively predicted employee loyalty to supervisor.
Supervisor s
passive or avoidant
leadership style will decrease
employee s
loyalty level. However, it did not support the
hypothesis that the specific factor
of
Laissez-faire leadership negatively predicted employee
loyalty to supervisor. In addition, the results did not support the other part
of
hypothesis 4 (b)
that active management-by-exception leadership style negatively
predicted
employee loyalty to
supervisor.
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
46/69
6
hapter V Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between supervisor s
leadership styles and employee s loyalty to their supervisor, and the predictions
of
leadership
styles on loyalty to supervisor in order to provide managerial reconunendations for the
improvement
of
supervisor s leadership styles. Surveys were conducted in the YZ Company in
China to collect data from a sample of employees who were working under supervisors in
different working groups. In previous chapters, previous research was reviewed, the
measurements were introduced, and results were presented from this particular sample. In this
chapter, it summarized conclusions
of
this study and provided reconunendations for this study
and the managerial problems.
onclusions
Two main research questions guided the present study. From the results, they showed that
the relationships between leadership styles and loyalty to supervisor, including the relationships
between specific behavioral factors, and how the leadership behaviors predicted employee
loyalty to supervisor.
With regard to the first research question, which is the correlations between the factors , the
results showed that transformational leadership, transactional leadership and passive leadership
all significant correlated with loyalty to supervisor, but they differed in the magnitude and
direction
of
their influence on employee loyalty to supervisor. Transformational leadership had
strong and positive correlations with employee s general loyalty to supervisor, and strong
positive with all the five dimensions
of
loyalty except extra effort for supervisor. The group of
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
47/69
7
specific behaviors factors of transformational leadership positively correlated with attachment to
supervisor and internalization
of supervisor s
values. These results were consistent with my
hypothesis. Transactional leadership had moderate and positive correlations with employee s
loyalty to supervisor, and positive correlations with attachment to
supervisor
and internalization
of
supervisor s values. Specifically, contingent reward and active management-by-exception also
had moderate correlations with attachment to supervisor and internalization of supervisor s
values. Passive
or
avoidant leadership had negative correlations with employee s loyalty to
supervisor, and negative correlations with dedication to supervisor and extra effort for
supervisors. Specifically, the sub-factors of passive management-by-exception and Laissez-faire
were also negatively correlated with dedicat ion and extra effort to supervisors.
With regard to the second research question, which is
how
the leadership factors determine
and predicted
employee s
loyalty to supervisor, the results showed that transformational
leadership can positively
predict
loyalty to supervisor?
f
supervisors perform more
transformational leadership, the employees will have higher loyalty to the supervisor. Especially,
idealized attributes leadership behaviors can significantly and strongly predict loyalty to
supervisor. Contrarily,
supervisor s
passive
or
avoidant leadership style
can
negatively predict
employee s loyalty level.
Based on these analysis results, they suggested that supervisors in organizations need to use
a combination of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors, but not passive or
avoidant leadership. From the results, transformational leadership
might
have more effects on
employee s loyalty, job satisfaction and work performance, but both transformational and
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
48/69
48
transactionalleaderships are effective leadership styles.
The results
o
the current study suppOlied the intervention
o
developing collaborative
relationships between the supervisor and the employees, which will positively influence
satisfaction with leadership and employee loyalty. The lack o such relationships negatively
influences satisfaction with leadership. The supervisors can use the results o the current study to
identify how their leadership behaviors affect employee satisfaction and how to improve their
leadership skills. The supervisors can also refer to the results to display the leadership styles and
behaviors that can improve employee's loyalty. The XYZ Company also can use this knowledge
to establish leadership training strategies and training programs t create a more positive
working environment and increase productivity.
imitations
The main limitation o the study was how culture impacted the relationships between
supervisors and employees. The study was conducted in China, and it was important to consider
the values and beliefs o that culture and how it impacted the roles o individuals within the
workplace. The impact o culture on leadership perceptions might have practical and theoretical
implications, particularly in times
o
globalization.
Another limitation o the study was the employees' personalities and preferences on
supervisor's leadership. Personality and personal preferences would affect people's perceptions
on leadership styles and their relationships with supervisors. In current study, these factors were
not controlled.
The other limitation was the limited sample size. Limited conclusions and generalizations
8/17/2019 Exploring the Relationship between Supervisor's Leadership Style and Employee Loyalty
49/69
49
could be made. Because the target participants in my study were in a certain company in the
marketing Department in China and the purpose is to help the company solve the managerial
problem, the appropriate participants were limited. Generalization
o
this research topic was
difficult to make to other populations.
ecommendations
Supervisors expect their followers to be loyal to them. The results
o
this study provided
insights into what employees need from their supervisors and what kinds
o
leadership behaviors
they prefer. This information could be used to help develop strategies and meet the needs through
leadership behavior development. According to the results, some strategies for improving
supervisor s leadership and employee s loyalty could be suggested.
t
indicated that transformational leadership behavior would improve employees higher
loyalty to the supervisors and participative interaction. The leaders or supervisors should be
aware
o
what is important for the subordinates and the organizations, and encourage the
employees to see the opportunities and challenges around them creatively. The supervisors
should have their own visions and development plans for followers, working groups and
organizations. The supervisors should have sense
o
innovation. And also, they should encourage
followers to seek more opportunities and possibilities, not
just
achieve performance wit