THE INFLUENCE OF EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF THE

LEADER’S PATH-GOAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS ON

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A CASE STUDY OF
EAST AFRICAN BREWERIES LIMITED (EABL)

BY

PAUL KASIMU

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY -

AFRICA

FALL 2016
THE INFLUENCE OF EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF THE
LEADER’S PATH-GOAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS ON
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A CASE STUDY OF
EAST AFRICAN BREWERIES LIMITED (EABL)

BY

PAUL KASIMU

A Project Report Submitted to the Chandaria School of Business in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of
Science in Organizational Development (MOD)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY-

AFRICA

FALL 2016
 STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any
other college, institution or university other than the United States International
University-Africa in Nairobi for academic credit.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: _______________________

Paul Kasimu (ID No. 640045)

This project has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed
supervisor.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: _______________________

Dr. Teresia K. Linge

Signed: ____________________________ Date: _______________________

Dean, Chandaria School of Business

ii
 COPYRIGHT

All rights reserved; no part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form of by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the express written authorization from the writer.

Paul M. Kasimu ©2016

iii
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of Path-Goal leadership
behaviors on organizational commitment at East African Breweries (EABL). The study
was guided by the following research questions: To what extent do employees’
perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s directive leadership behavior affect their
organizational commitment? To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their
immediate supervisor’s supportive leadership behavior affect their organizational
commitment? To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s
participative leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment? Finally, to what
extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s achievement-oriented
leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment?

This study adopted a descriptive research design, that is, this research design involved the
observation and description of the behavior of a subject without influencing the outcome
of the respondent in any way. The target population was the 352 employees of EABL.
The study used a simple random sampling technique and a sample size of 176
respondents was randomly selected. This technique was the most appropriate because it
allowed the researcher to ensure that each case in the population had an equal chance of
being incorporated in the sample. Both closed and open ended questions was used in the
questionnaires to collect data. Effective and efficient data analysis process was ensured
through the coding and sorting of the questionnaires and analysis was done using
descriptive and inferential analysis in the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS).
For easy interpretations and understanding figures and tables was used for the
presentation of the results and findings.

Findings on the directive leadership behaviors and organizational commitment

established that the majority of respondents agreed that directive leadership behavior
leads to high organizational commitment in an organization. Many respondents were in
agreement that their managers guided them to follow standard rules and regulations. The
study established that there existed a statistical significant influence between directive
leadership behavior and organizational commitment.

iv
On supportive leadership behavior and organizational commitment, many respondents
were in agreement that managers maintained a friendly working environment. They also
agreed that managers considered subordinates personal feelings and helped them to
overcome task related problems. Majority of respondents agreed that supportive
leadership behavior influences organizational commitment.

The findings on the effect of participative leadership behaviors on organizational

commitment also established that the majority of responses were positive that mangers
listened to them. However a big number was neutral suggesting that not all respondents
agreed they were listened to by their managers. Although a majority of respondents
agreed that managers consulted with subordinates who were experiencing problems a big
number was also neutral which could be suggestive that some employees were not helped
by their managers when they had work related problems.

On achievement related behaviors and organizational commitment, many respondents

were neutral about having challenging goals. All the same, many agreed that managers
encouraged continuous improvement. A big number of respondents were neutral about
the managers’ belief in subordinates. Findings also showed that there was consistency in
goal setting

This study concludes that directive leadership behavior has a significant effect on
organizational commitment of EABL, and that supportive, participative and achievement-
oriented leadership behavior have no significant effect on organizational commitment.
From the findings it is also reasonable to conclude that all the four types of leadership
were applied by managers at EABL.

The study recommends that directive leadership behavior should be practicedin the
organization in order to achieve a high organizational commitment. The study also
recommends against the use of supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented
leadership behavior in pursuit of achieving high organizational commitment. The study
recommends that further study be carried out effect of specific leadership behavior on
organizational performance.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am hugely indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Teresia K. Linge, for the guidance and
coaching that enabled me to undertake my first academic research paper. I will forever be
grateful to my Managing Director, Charles Ireland, for the challenge he gave me to write
a book. While this is perhaps a different outcome, the thrill of binding my research work
was more than anything I had imagined. The depth of resource material at USIU was the
center piece in my research work and I have no doubt this made my research work so
much bearable. I will always cherish the input from my colleagues in the Masters of
Organizational Development 2015 for the moments we had, the energy, occasional bursts
of laughter, the constant jokes and relentlessness in ensuring that we walked together in
this journey.

vi
 DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to the numerous people who have supported me in my career
and study over the years. There are moments when I recall vividly my formative years in
nursery school when my mother Grace Mbinya Kasimu had to put up with my truancy.
For not giving up on me and putting up with the morning fights kept me in the straight
and narrow. I will forever be grateful for the values you instilled in me. My lovely wife
Stella for the constant encouragement and being my pillar in this journey. Our amazing
children Eva, Eric, Eddie and Erikson for checking on my progress and cheering me on.
My supervisor Dr. Teresia K. Linge for the invaluable input. All my colleagues and my
various line managers who were great coaches and mentors. Finally, to all the amazing
leaders who constantly bring the best in your teams. This is for you all.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
STUDENT’S DECLARATION ....................................................................................... ii

COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... vi

DEDICATION................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1

1.1 Background of the Study ...............................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................9

1.3 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................12

1.4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................12

1.5 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................12

1.6 Scope of the Study .......................................................................................................13

1.7 Definition of Terms......................................................................................................14

1.8 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................15

CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................17

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................17

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................17

2.2 DirectiveLeadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment ..............................17

2.3 Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment ..........................22

2.4 Participative Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment ........................28
2.5 Achievement-Oriented Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment .......32

2.6 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................38

viii
CHAPTER THREE .........................................................................................................39

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................39

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................39

3.2 Research Design...........................................................................................................39

3.3 Population and Sampling Design .................................................................................40

3.4 Data Collection Methods .............................................................................................42

3.5 Research Procedures ....................................................................................................42

3.6 Data Analysis Methods ................................................................................................43

3.7 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................43

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................44

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS .....................................................................................44

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................44

4.2 General Information .....................................................................................................44

4.3 DirectiveLeadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment ..............................48

4.4 Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment ..........................50

4.5 ParticipativeLeadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment .........................53

4.6 Achievement OrientedLeadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment.........55

4.7 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................58

CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................59

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................59

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................59

5.2 Summary of the Findings .............................................................................................59

5.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................................60

5.4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................66

5.5 Recommendations ........................................................................................................67

ix
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................69

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................80

Appendix I: Cover Letter ................................................................................................80

Appendix II: Questionnaire ............................................................................................81

x
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Target Population..............................................................................................40

Table 3.2: Sample Size ......................................................................................................41

Table 4.1: Employees Organizational Commitment ..........................................................47

Table 4.2: Employees’ Future at the Organization ...........................................................48

Table 4.3:Organization Loyalty .........................................................................................48

Table 4.4: Subordinates’ Expectation ................................................................................49

Table 4.5: Keeping Subordinates Informed .......................................................................49

Table 4.6: Following Rules and Regulations .....................................................................49

Table 4.7: Performance Expectations ................................................................................50

Table 4.8: Clarity of Expectations .....................................................................................50

Table 4.9: Working Relationship .......................................................................................51

Table 4.10: Positive Gestures from Managers ...................................................................51

Table 4.11: Subordinates’ Personal feelings ......................................................................52

Table 4.12: Problem Solving .............................................................................................52

Table 4.13: Subordinates’ Needs .......................................................................................52

Table 4.14: Consultation with Subordinates ......................................................................53

Table 4.15: Listening to Subordinates ...............................................................................53

Table 4.16: Incoporating Subordinates’ Inputs ..................................................................54

Table 4.17: Subordinate Invovlement on Assignments .....................................................54

Table 4.18: Subordinates’ Input on Choice of Assignments .............................................55

Table 4.19: Performance Expectations ..............................................................................55

Table 4.20: Challenging Goals ..........................................................................................56

Table 4.21: Subordinates Continuous Improvement .........................................................56

Table 4.22: Belief in Subordinates.....................................................................................56

Table 4.23: Consistency in Goal Setting............................................................................57

Table 4.24: Model Summary .............................................................................................57

xi
Table 4.25: Anova ..............................................................................................................58

Table 4.26: Coefficient of the Relationship of Path-Goal Leadership Behaviors and

Organizational Commitment ..............................................................................................58

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Response Rate .................................................................................................44

Figure 4.2: Gender Representation ....................................................................................45

Figure 4.3: Age Bracket .....................................................................................................45

Figure 4.4: Functions .........................................................................................................46

Figure 4.5: Working Experience ........................................................................................46

Figure 4.6: Reporting .........................................................................................................47

xiii
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

EABL – East African Breweries Limited

OCQ – Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

KSHS – Kenya Shillings

xiv
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The construct of organizational commitment has been receiving wide attention in

psychological research for many years (Gutierrez, Candela & Carver, 2012; Huang, You
& Tsai, 2012; Matthews & Allen, 2013; Kanning & Hill, 2015). Employee commitment
comprises commitment to the organization, manager, occupation, profession, or career
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). The decision to remain with an organization is largely
determined by an employee’s level of commitment to the organization (Miller, 1996).
Organizational commitment leads to important outcomes such as decreased turnover,
higher motivation, higher organization citizenship behavior and organizational support
(Kwon & Banks, 2004). Commitment is defined as the strength of an individual's
identification with and involvement in a particular organization (Porter, Steers,
Mowday & Boulian, 1974). Wiener (1982) defined commitment as the 'totality of
internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizational goals and
interests'.

Scientific researchers have established that staff with more organizational commitment
are more loyal, productive and accountable (Ahmadi, Ahmadi & Zohrabi, 2011). In
addition, organizational commitment is considered as one of the reliable and sustainable
predictors of the absence, turnover, productivity, efficiency and job satisfaction of
employees. Organizational commitment is an attitude that reflects employees’ loyalty to
their organization (Luthans, 2011). It is essential for the attraction and retention of well
qualified employees and directly affects the performance of employees. Satisfied and
committed employees will be willing to continue their association with the organization
and make considerable effort towards the achievement of its goals (Nagar, 2012).
Commitment has also been seen as the relative strength of an individual’s identification
with and involvement in an organization.

Organizational commitment refers to the extent to which the employees of an

organization see themselves as belonging to the organization (or parts of it) and feel
attached to it (Meyer, Kam, Goldenberg & Bremner, 2013). Kellerman (2003) defined

1
organizational commitment as a psychological state that binds the individual to the
organization (and thereby making turnover less likely). It is a psychological attachment
that an employee has with an organization, classified by strong identification and desire to
contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. It focuses on employees’
commitment to the organization and is influenced by several factors including
commitment to the manager, occupation, profession, or career (Meyer, Kam, Goldenberg
& Bremner, 2013). Organizational commitment provides a broad measure of the
effectiveness of leadership behaviors (Brown, 2003).

In explaining the significance of organizational commitment, Meyer, Kam, Goldenberg

and Bremner (2013) observe that organizational commitment is the most maturely
developed of all the work commitment constructs. Commitment is significantly related to
trust, job involvement, and job satisfaction and has a direct link to turnover.
Organizational commitment has therefore been linked to measures of effectiveness such
as turnover, job performance, and job satisfaction. Employees’ commitment with an
organization reduces their intention to quit their jobs and enhances their intentions to stay
in their roles and work with more effectiveness and loyalty (Pascal, Pierre-Sebastien, &
Lamontagne, 2011). When employees are treated with consideration, they display greater
levels of commitment (Gutierrez et al., 2012). Employees who are allowed to participate
in decision-making have higher levels of commitment to the organization (Jermier &
Berkes, 1979). There are positive correlations between commitment and job performance
(Wiener & Vardi, 1980). Commitment is accompanied by job satisfaction, an active
support of the company values as well as an increased work performance (Kanning &
Hill, 2015).

Organizational commitment can be defined as the acceptance of organization’s goals by

employees to voluntarily cooperate (Subramaniam, McManus & ve Mia, 2002). Meyer
and Allen (1991) developed a framework to measure three different types of
organizational commitment. The first of these is affective commitment which refers to
employees’ emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement in the
organization. It was established that employees with a strong affective commitment stay
with the organization because they want to. The second type of commitment is
continuance commitment which refers to employees’ assessment of whether the costs of
leaving the organization are greater than the costs of staying. Based on this, employees

2
who perceive that the costs of leaving the organization are greater than the costs of
staying remain because they need to. The third type of commitment normative
commitment denotes employees’ feelings of obligation to the organization. Employees
with high levels of normative commitment stay with the organization because they feel
they ought to (Meyer & Allen, 1997); Meyer, Kam, Goldenberg & Bremner, 2013). The
major elements constituting commitment include speaking positively about the company,
stating in an organization even one got an offer, passion in discussing the organization to
others, and preparedness to work indefinitely (Pandey & Khare, 2012). The predictors of
organizational commitment generally occur in three categories. The first of these is
organizational characteristics such as organizational size. The second category entails
personal characteristics such as gender, age, and organizational tenure, autonomy, and
decentralization. The third category is work experiences which include factors such as
organizational support and fairness (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Affective commitment is positively associated with transformational leadership,

organizational support, ethical climate, person-organizational fit, as well as interactional,
distributive, and procedural justice. Conversely, it is negatively correlated with age
discrimination, role ambiguity and role conflict (Gutierrez et al., 2012; Huang et al.,
2012; Rabl & Triana, 2013). Predictors of commitment have been studied, not merely to
produce commitment as an end in itself, but as a means of linking commitment to
desirable outcomes and in particular improved employee attendance and increased
organizational performance (Mottaz, 1988).

The key elements of employees’ affective attachment to an organization include

acceptance of organizational values, willingness to exert effort, and desire to maintain
membership in an organization (Mowday, 1979). Employees who feel that their opinions
are taken into consideration and that they are involved in decision-making process are
believed to have affective commitment to their organization (Pandey & Khare, 2012).
People with high affective commitment report favourable work conditions, were
committed to stay in the organization. Organizations that were family-supportive produce
higher affective commitment by reducing family conflicts and enhancing work-to-family
enrichment (Wayne, Casper, Matthews, Allen, 2013). Research shows affective
commitment gives more desired organizational outcomes. Employees having more
motivation and emotional attachment to organization participate more towards achieving

3
organizational goals. Organization need to design policies (both short term and long term)
which will increase affective commitment. Short term policies include treating employees
with respect, sense of being part of a family, encouragement and involvement in decision
making, and a secure and healthy work environment. Long term organizational policies
that increase affective commitment include fair recruitment and selection process,
supportive work environment, timely investment in training and development, perception
of fairness in assessment and promotion process. Employees’ affective commitment is
likely to increase if they judge fairness in rewarding compensation and benefits
(Dordevic, 2004).

Positive associations exist between affective commitment and motivation, organizational

citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, performance and productivity (Davila & Garcia,
2012; Dello Russo, Vecchione & Borgogni, 2013; Huang, et al., 2012; Vecina, Chacon,
Marzana & Marta, 2013). The conclusion from various studies on leadership has been
that employees who have high levels of commitment to the organization are more
effective (Meyer et al., 2013).Satisfaction with supervisor has a significant positive
correlation with affective commitment (McCormack et al., 2007). Pandey and Khare,
(2012) observed that employees with higher affective commitment levels stick to the
organizational values and assist reach organizational targets in order to sustain their
existence.

Continuance commitment results from the motivation to avoid impending costs that
would be linked to a possible change of employer (Meyer et al., 2013). Continuance
commitment emerges as an obligation for employees is desired to be at the minimum
level when compared to affective and normative commitment (Pandey & Khare, 2012).
Investments that employees will have made include specialist knowledge, long term
incentives, extra pay, and pension claims. Costs related with leaving are relocation, wage
losses, loss of personal contacts to former colleagues. People with high continuance
commitment look for new jobs and score high in anxiety and depression (Meyer et al.,
2013). Participation of employees in decision-making process and meeting their needs are
useful in increasing the continuance commitment levels of employees (Pandey & Khare,
2012). The higher the commitment of the employees the greater they perceive the costs of
such a change to be and the previous investments that an employee has made in the
organization play an important role. The continuance commitment consequently

4
corresponds to the result of a cognitive evaluation process, and is not emotionally
instigated (Meyer et al., 2013). Leadership and employee participation are foundations of
organizational commitment (Njoroge, 2015). Bass and Avolio (1997) view leadership as a
process of leaders influencing followers to achieve organizational objectives.
Transactional leadership behavior is of direct and positive relationship with affective
commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment (Ahmadi, Ahmadi &
Zohrabi, 2011).Focus on needs and happiness of employees during the implementation of
organizational activities makes it easier to accomplish organizational goals will be easier.
An increased participation of employees in organizational decision-making process and
encouraging them to state their opinions will positively create affective commitment
(Pandey & Khare, 2012).

Normative commitment does not correspond to any individually felt attachment of the
organization members, but rather reflects their moral ethical obligation towards the
organization (Meyer et al., 2013) noted that. Continuance commitment results from the
motivation to avoid impending costs that would be linked to a possible change of
employer (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer et al., 2013). The meta-analysis conducted by
Meyer et al., (2012) was able to show that particularly normative commitment is
influenced by cultural values, but much less affective and continuance commitment.
Jackson, Meyer and Wang (2013) found a moderating influence of culture concerning the
relation between different managing behaviors and commitment in their meta-analysis.
The effects here were overall rather small (Kanning & Hill, 2015).

Numerous theories of organizational commitment result from several studies conducted

by Sheldon (1971). Pandey and Khare (2012) did a study on improving organizational
commitment and found that organizational commitment was affected by four major
factors: leadership personality, job specialty, pay and working experience. The outcome
affected by organizational commitment includes the retention willingness, retention
demand, attending rate, and work performance. Based on the related theory, Northouse
(2016). proposed a cause-effect relationship model. From this model, it can be observed
that organizational commitment is the intervening variable which affects a member’s
value, attitude, and behavior in the organization.

5
Northouse (2016) observed that leadership behaviors impact on employees' motivation,
empowerment, satisfaction, and commitment as productive members of the organization.
Subordinates are motivated by their leader to achieve goals when leaders clearly define
the goals, clarify the path to completing the goals, remove obstacles to completing the
goals, and provide support to help achieve the assigned goals (Northouse, 2016). The
Path-Goal model is based on specifying a leader's behavior that best fits the employee and
work environment in order to achieve a goal (House, Mitchell, 1974). The theory was
first introduced by Martin Evans (1970) and then further developed by House (1996).
Path–goal theory of leadership focuses on how leaders motivate subordinates to
accomplish designated goals (Northouse, 2016).

Path-Goal model is premised on Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory which provides that
an individual will act in a certain way based on the expectation that the act will be
followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual.
The path-goal leadership model is based on motivation theories of goal setting and
expectancy theory (Northouse, 2016). The model is used to select the leadership behavior
appropriate to the situation to maximize both job performance and job satisfaction
(Lussier & Achua, 2013). Northouse (2016) observed that the Path-Goal theory is a
process in which leaders select specific behaviors that are best suited to the employees'
needs and the working environment so that they may best guide the employees through
their path in the obtainment of their daily work activities (goals). Path clarification occurs
when a leader helps followers to identify and learn the behaviors that will lead to
successful task accomplishment and organizational rewards (Lussier & Achua, 2013).

In order to drive organizational commitment, leaders do not have to be matched to

particular situations or the situation changed to match leader behavior (Northouse, 2016).
In path-goal theory, leaders may be flexible (similar to situational leadership) and
exercise all or any of the four behaviors depending on the subordinate and task
characteristics (House & Mitchell, 1974). Path–goal theory of leadership is similar to the
situational and contingency theories of leadership in that it prescribes appropriate
leadership behaviors for interacting with subordinates to positively influence their
commitment. The theory adds more variables to what leaders need to consider in their
relationships with employees (Northouse, 2016). In addition, leaders may integrate

6
behaviors should the situation require a blending of two or more behaviors (Dubrin,
2007).

Northouse (2016) noted that leaders who are effective meet subordinates’ needs. They
also grow commitment of subordinates by helping them to set goals and determine the
path to take in achieving these goals. Effective leaders assist subordinates in getting
around, getting through, or removing obstacles. Finally, leaders are effective when they
assist subordinates in the achievement of their goals by guiding, directing, and coaching
them along the right path (Northouse, 2016). There are two situational factors that are
used to determine the leadership behavior that affects goal achievement through
performance and commitment: subordinate situational characteristics and environmental
factors. Subordinates characteristics can be authoritarianism, internal or external locus of
control, and their ability to perform goals. Environment situation factors are task
structure, formal authority or position power, and the work group (Lussier & Achua,
2013). The process generally follows three basic steps which start with determining the
employee and environmental characteristics, then selecting a behavior, and finally
focusing on motivational factors that will help the employee succeed (Northouse, 2016).

Northouse, (2016) similarly notes that task and environmental characteristics include
design of the task, formal authority system and the work group. Employee characteristics
include experience, ability, and locus of control. In order to achieve set goals the Path-
Goal model provides that the leader should consider the task and environmental
characteristics as well as the employee characteristics and then choose of one four
behaviors. In order to achieve motivation and commitment of the employee, the leader
defines the goals, clarifies the path, removes obstacles, and provides support. The path-
goal theory suggests a fourfold classification of behaviors: (1) directive, (2) supportive,
(3) participative leadership, and (4) achievement oriented (Daft, 2010; Lussier & Achua,
2013; Northouse, 2016).

Northhouse (2016) describes the first aspect of path-goal model as directive leadership
which entails clarifying behavior and aims to reduce job function ambiguity. Such leaders
give specific expectations to workers regarding task performance, and they clarify work
functions to ensure a high degree of certainty regarding policies, rules and procedures.
They define job schedules and coordination to remove any ambiguity and paint a clear
link between performance goals and rewards, including advancement and pay increases
7
(Northhouse, 2016). The second aspect of path-goal theory is supportive leadership
behavior which has a primary concern of ensuring subordinate's psychological well-
being. Stress reduction and frustration mitigation are of central importance. Therefore
such form of leadership is particularly suited to situations where jobs are physically or
psychologically demanding. Supportive leadership can be equated to people-oriented
leadership (Daft, 2010).

Participative leadership behavior is the third aspect of Path-Goal leadership and involves
leaders consulting with employees regarding preferences in performing job requirements.
Team members have autonomy and are directly involved in the decision-making process
which in turn leads to an employee exerting greater efforts to achieve set goals.
Participative leadership is similar to selling behavior in Hersey and Blanchard (Daft,
2010). The fourth type of path-goal theory is achievement-oriented in which leaders
“challenge followers to perform at the highest possible level while ensuring they instill a
high degree of confidence in their followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 118). Focus is on
encouraging performance excellence by setting goals that challenge employees.
Achievement-oriented leadership is both high-directive and high supportive behavior and
occurs when “the leader sets difficult goals, expects followers to perform at their highest
level, and rewards them for doing so” (Lussier & Achua, 2013, p. 119). After setting
goals for their teams, such leaders exhibit confidence in their employees and motivate
them in meeting performance goals.

In Kenya, very few studies have explored the concept of organizational commitment in
relationship to leadership behavior. Studies on leadership behaviors and organizational
commitment in Kenya are scanty (Njoroge, 2014). Also, further research needs to be
carried out to provide information whether organizational commitment is a consequence
of job satisfaction, or if the reverse is the case (Kanning & Hill, 2015). The corporate
world in Kenya is critical in achieving the country’s Vision 2030 of sustainable
development goals. East African Breweries Limited (EABL) is the second highest
corporate tax payer in Kenya and has called out an ambition to be the best performing,
most trusted and respected consumer goods in Africa. The operating environment remains
dynamic requiring the company to be more strategic in its forecast. EABL was
established in 1922 and has market-leading brands in beer and spirits. The company is a
subsidiary of Diageo and has its headquarters in Kenya. The company and is composed of

8
four business units namely, Kenya Breweries, Uganda Breweries, Serengeti Breweries,
and EABL International operating in South Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi and Eastern
Democratic Republic of Congo. It is a predominantly beer business and has an emerging
spirits portfolio.

The performance ambition for EABL is to create the best performing, most trusted and
respected consumer products’ company in Africa (East African Breweries Limited
Annual Report, 2015). The company has a strong employer brand having been rated as
the Best Company to Work For in Kenya in the inaugural Deloitte survey in 2012. In
2015, the company was voted the second best employer of choice in Africa (Careers in
Africa, 2016). Each year the company conducts an internal employee survey based on the
company values of passionate about customers, freedom to succeed, proud of what they
do, being the best, and valuing each.

A key metric that is tracked in the survey is net promoter score of line managers. In a
broad based survey with over 13,000 respondents from 54 African countries, EABL was
ranked second, just behind Proctar & Gamble and ahead of Microsoft as the Employer of
Choice in Africa in 2015. Contributing to its overall positioning was EABL’s placement
at the first runner up in each of the leadership, management, corporate social
responsibility, and Fast Moving Consumer Goods categories (Careers in Africa Employer
of Choice Awards, 2015).Focus on strengthening organization goals through
organizational commitment of its talent will guarantee the achievement of the
performance ambition of the company. This study will therefore seek to establish what
contributes to organizational commitment in the target organization.

1.2 Problem Statement

Organizational commitment has continued to gain popularity as a result of its being

related to many organizational outcomes including the performance of an organization
(Njoroge, 2015). Research literature is indicative of the fact that leadership behaviors are
of meaningful relationship with organizational commitment (Ahmadi, Ahmadi &
Zohrabi, 2011). Organizational commitment is considered as one of the concepts which
has always been attended to by many researchers and scholars. Paramount significance of
the staff organizational commitment for all organizations has already led to
implementation of many researches in the field of management on the staff organizational

9
commitment and other issues like staff job satisfaction, and turnover (Ahmadi, Ahmadi &
Zohrabi, 2011). Industrial, organizational, and occupational psychologists were the ones
who have most frequently studied the general subject of organizational commitment
(Mueller, Wallace, & Price, 1992). However, past research has not presented readers with
standard elements of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Although the vast research in the past has established that leadership behaviors affect
employees’ commitment to the organization, there is limited guidance on how different
types of organizational commitment are affected by relations-oriented and task-oriented
leadership behaviors (Brown, 2003). Management literature and research have growing
evidence suggesting that organizational commitment is associated with variables of great
importance for organization efficiency and effectiveness (Njoroge, 2015). Brown (2003)
stated that the relationship between employees’ perceptions of their immediate
supervisors’ relations-oriented leadership behaviors and different types of organizational
commitment has not been fully established. Also, the relationship between employees’
perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ leadership behaviors and different types of
organizational commitment is not well documented (Brown, 2003). Similarly, it would be
important for leaders to know the antecedents and variables of organizational
commitment in order to create conditions that brings out the best in their teams and, in
turn, organizational performance (Njoroge, 2015).

There has been concern as to whether or not commitment was a reasonable expectation
for employers to hold for their employees in today's work environment where changes in
leadership and organizational focus may occur rapidly (Hawkins, 1998). The old
employment contract of lifetime employment in exchange for loyalty is long gone and for
many companies, commitment fled with it (Laabs, 1996). The notions concerning the lack
of commitment to organizations today have served as a catalyst for the further study of
organizational commitment (Morrow & McElroy, 1993). The maintenance of employee
organizational commitment is a viable organizational goal (Hawkins, 1998).
Organizations that are characterized by organizational change still need a core of
employees, especially leaders, who are committed to the values and goals of the
organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

10
Leadership drives employee commitment yet the proliferation of leadership theories and
related empirical studies have not helped to resolve the age-long issue of leadership
effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002). The dearth of research on leadership behavior is
more startling given the investments in leadership development and emphasis placed on
performance management and improvement (Fernandez, Cho & Perry, 2010). During the
implementation of organizational activities, managers should embrace human-focused
leadership behavior rather than mission-focused leadership behavior. Normative
commitment refers to behavioral and attitudinal situations to reach organizational goals
that occur from the feeling of responsibility of employees for their organization (Meyer,
et al., 2013).

Njoroge (2014) undertook a study on the effect of integrative leadership behaviors on

organizational commitment as moderated by employee participation in technical
institutions in Kenya. A key finding of the study was the need to embrace integrative
leadership (incorporating transformational, transactional and laisse faire leadership
behaviors) in order to increase organizational commitment and in turn improve
organizational performance. A recommendation of the study was the need to undertake
future research in the area of organizational commitment to assist in generalization of the
study findings (Njoroge, 2014). Organizational commitment is a key measure of the
effectiveness of leadership behaviors. When searching for organizational commitment
predictors it can be observed that predicted assumptions are partly affirmed (Wolowska,
2014). Literature focusing on the relationship between superior/subordinate gender and
commitment to the leader has been overlooked, according to Pohl and Paillé (2011).

Research conducted over the years has also identified some criticisms and limitations of
the path-goal theory. Further, path-goal theory is in risk of being prematurely forgotten
(possibly being disregarded and perhaps dying of malnutrition) (Schriesheim, 1996).
Although this statement was from the early eighties, it still has a valid point that it cannot
predict future outcomes, but it can mitigate risks and inefficiencies. There have been
many studies conducted on path goal theory. However, these studies are mainly all from a
western perspective dating back over 50 years and prominently by Americans.
Silverthorne (2004) conducted a study within an Asian setting and established that
theorists have not researched much cross culturally; this may be attributed to difficulty in
developing meaningful extensions or modifications, along with foreign policies and

11
barriers (Schriesheim, 1996). Furthermore, concludes Kanning and Hill (2015), it may not
be possible to compare across cultures because most samples were too small and not
representative for other cultures. These studies were all done in foreign countries and
none was conducted in Kenya which this study seeks to do.

This study will therefore contribute towards research by focusing on the effect of
achievement-oriented, directive, supportive and participative leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of employee perception of Path-
Goal leadership behaviors on organizational commitment.

1.4 Research Questions

The study was guided by the following research questions:

1.4.1 To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s directive

leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment at EABL?

1.4.2 To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s

supportive leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment at EABL?

1.4.3 To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s

participative leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment at EABL?

1.4.4 To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s

achievement-oriented leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment at
EABL?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The main beneficiaries of this study will be:

12
1.5.1East African Breweries

There is a link between affective organizational commitment and productivity (Meyer &
Allen, 1997) in terms of outcomes such as job performance and attendance. It is assumed
that this study will be of interest to business leaders and human resource practitioners in
East African Breweries. The research will assist in deepening the understanding of the
key drivers of employee commitment in the Company. Key focus areas will include but
not be limited to organizational effectiveness, learning and development, strategic
positioning, risk management, leading and managing change, and emotional intelligence.

1.5.2Industry

The study will be a critical handbook to current leaders and employees seeking to take up
any people leadership positions not just in the organization studied but elsewhere in
public, private or any other institution. Several studies have in the past documented the
effectiveness of relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors (Bass, 1990a).
This study will provide insights on the link between leaders’ behaviors of engaging with
the people they lead and how that directly impacts on organizational commitment and
overall business performance. This will enable leaders to build their self-awareness and
have a clear reference for adjusting their behaviors to bring out the best in their teams.
This should be a desire of aspiring leaders who wish to create breakthrough in their
leadership journey, create step change in their career growth and leave a lasting legacy in
their organizations.

1.5.3 Academicians and Researchers

Employee commitment continues to be a subject of interest in academia. This study will

provide an additional insight to the body of knowledge on the general subject of
employee commitment. It is hope that the study will provide a base for further research on
employee commitment and the role it plays in the performance of organizations.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study was carried out at EABL in Nairobi Kenya. The study sought to investigate the
effect of employee perception of Path-Goal leadership behaviors on organizational
commitment. The study focused on all executive directors, heads of department,

13
managers, supervisors and general staff of East African Breweries particularly those
based in Nairobi. The study was carried out within a period of three months, between
May and July, 2016. The limitation of the study was when generalization of the findings
from samples is being used, there was always a risk of amplifying errors. To counter this
the researcher ensured that the response to the questionnaires were up to date and correct
values were used in the questionnaires.

1.7 Definition of Terms

The following are the key terms relevant to this research.

1.7.1 Leadership

Leadership is a process of interaction between leaders and followers where the leader
attempts to influence followers to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2006).
It is an influence relationship among leaders and followers to achieve real changes and
outcomes that reflect their shared purpose (Daft, 2010).

1.7.2 Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the degree to which an employee identifies with the goals
and values of the organization and is willing to exert effort to help it succeed (Meyer,
Kam, Goldenberg & Bremner, 2013)

1.7.3 Affective Commitment

Affective commitment is when an employee identifies with and is psychologically

involved with the organization (McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Yang, 2007).
Affective commitment refers to employees’ emotional attachment, identification with,
and involvement in the organization. It was established that employees with a strong
affective commitment stay with the organization because they want to (Meyer & Allen,
1997).

1.7.4 Normative Commitment

Normative commitment refers to behavioral and attitudinal situations to reach

organizational goals that occur from the feeling of responsibility of employees for their

14
organization (Meyer, Kam, Goldenberg & Bremner, 2013). Employees who continue
membership with an organization due to normative commitment show a propensity to
stay in that organization. They feel obligated to stay with the organization because it is
the moral and right thing to do.

1.7.5 Continuance Commitment

Continuance commitment refers to the awareness of the cost associated with leaving an
organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

1.7.6 Directive Leadership Behavior

Directive leadership is described as the situation where a leader gives complete and
essential directives on a particular subject (House 1971).

1.7.7 Supportive Leadership Behavior

Supportive leadership is one which the leader is concerned with subordinates’ needs and
preferences by displaying a concern for their welfare and work environment (House &
Dessler, 1974).

1.7.8 Participative Leadership Behavior

Participative leadership involves consultation with subordinates and encouraging their

ideas when making decisions (Bartol & Martin, 1998).

1.7.9 Achievement-oriented Leadership Behavior

Achievement oriented leadership is one that provides challenges in situations where the
group members have high expectations and need to excel and the tasks that are
ambiguous, challenging and complex (Northouse, 2016).

1.8 Chapter Summary

Chapter one highlighted the background of the study and the statement of the problem.
Next was the purpose of the study and the research questions. The chapter also presented
the significance of the study, the scope, definition of terms and ended with a chapter

15
summary. The next chapter of this paper is on literature review for the four research
questions identified in Chapter One. Chapter three will capture areas of research design,
population and sampling design, data collection methods, research procedures and the
various data analysis methods. Chapter four presents the results and findings as per the
research questions and finally chapter fives gives the summary, discussions, conclusions
and recommendations as per the findings.

16
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter covers the relevant literature on leadership behavior and organizational
commitment. The chapter is outline as per the research questions namely: To what extent
do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s directive leadership behavior
affect their organizational commitment? To what extent do employees’ perceptions of
their immediate supervisor’s supportive leadership behavior affect their organizational
commitment? To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s
participative leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment? And to what
extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s achievement-oriented
leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment?

2.2 Directive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

Directive leaders allow subordinates to know what is expected of them, guidance on work
methods, development of work schedules, identification of work evaluation standards,
and stating the basis for outcomes or rewards (Bartol & Martin,1998). House and Dessler
(1974) described the directive leader as one who provides psychological structure by
informing subordinates what is expected of them and giving specific guidance, clarifying
roles, rules, and procedures. Organizational commitment levels decrease as directive
leadership behavior increases or vice-versa (Çokluk & Yılmaz, 2010). Research has
established that there is negative and significant relationship between directive leadership
behavior and organizational commitment. House and Mitchell (1974) observed that the
directive leader clarifies expectations and gives specific guidance to accomplish the
desired expectations based on performance standards and organizational rules. The
directive behavior may be perceived as aggressive, controlling, descriptive, and structured
by dictating what needs to be done and how to do it (Polston-Murdoch, 2013).

Directive behavior is positively related to subordinates’ expectations and commitment in

subordinates who are employed to perform ambiguous, unstructured tasks; however,
negatively related to satisfaction and commitment of subordinates who are well-structured

17
and receive clear tasks (House, 1971). Directive leadership is similar to task-oriented
leadership (Daft, 2010). The leader’s responsibility is to increase follower’s motivation
by clarifying the behaviors necessary for accomplishment of tasks and rewards (Daft,
2010). Commitment is increased by clarifying the follower’s path to the rewards that are
available, or increasing the rewards that the follower values and desires (Lussier &
Achua, 2013).

Behavior of directive leadership entails telling the expectations to those under the
command (followers), planning, programming, autocratic controlling goal performance,
and bringing out standards in behavior (Mahdi, Mohd, & Almsafir, 2014). The leader
explains followers’ roles, and followers clearly understand what they are expected to do.
House (1996) asserts that directive leadership tells subordinates exactly what they are
supposed to do and questions like “what to do, how to do, where to do, when to do, and
who should do?” are clearly specified. Directive leadership provides guidance and
psychological structure (Northouse, 2016) and entails giving direction to subordinates
regarding their tasks (Daft, 2010). Subordinates who work in uncertain situations and
have a tendency to be dogmatic and authoritarian will ordinarily prefer directive
leadership because this type of leadership gives psychological structure and task clarity
(Northouse, 2016). These directions include the result expected, how the task will be
accomplished, and the schedule for task completion. In addition, the leader clarifies
performance expectations and explicitly outlines the required standard operating
procedures, rules, and regulations (Yukl, 2006).

Directive leadership behavior increases subordinate morale and commitment when there
is task ambiguity (Dubrin, 2007) and is similar to the task-oriented or initiating structure
behavior (Daft, 2010). Subordinates with an external locus of control should prefer
directive leadership because it parallels their belief that external forces control what
happens to them (Northouse, 2016). Directive leadership behavior’s structure has
characteristics such as close control over employees, inspecting employee performances,
telling them what to do and describing them their roles, standardizing their behavior, not
trusting them, not participating them into decision making process, and dominating them
(House, 1971).

18
2.2.1 Role Clarity

Role clarity as the extent to which an individual receives and understands information
required to do the job (Kelly & Hise, 1980). Key antecedents of role clarity are feedback,
autonomy, participation, supervisory consideration, and team support; while key
consequences are organizational commitment, job satisfaction and service quality
(Mukherjee & Malhotra, 2006).Role clarity refers to the degree to which required
information is provided about how the employee is expected to perform his/her job (Teas,
1980). Research findings indicate that feedback, participation and team support
significantly influence role clarity, which in turn influences job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Mukherjee & Malhotra, 2006). The variables affecting role
clarity fall into two categories: task-related and supervisor-related (Jackson and Schuler,
1985). Task autonomy and feedback are the two job-design (task-related) factors, and
participation and supervisory consideration are the supervisor-related factors (Mukherjee
& Malhotra, 2006). Attribution theorists suggest that employees are committed and
motivated not only to maximize their rewards, but also to attain a cognitive mastery of the
causal structure of their environment (Sujan, 1986). Role clarity helps in providing that
structure. Murherjee and Makhotra (2006) concluded that there were three important
consequences of role clarity, namely: job satisfaction, organizational commitment and
job performance (Ruyter, Wetzels & Feinberg, 2001). Research demonstrates that role
clarity is positively related to organizational commitment (Mukherjee & Malhotra, 2006).

Directive leadership is required to provide structure in instances where there is goal

ambiguity. The directive behavior raises commitment of newly hired or inexperienced
subordinates and in situations that require immediate action (Negron, 2008). In some
instances, the leader defines the roles of their followers, focuses on goal achievement, and
establishes well-defined patterns of communication (Terbenero, Chambel, Curral
&Arana, 2009). Directive leadership focuses on results, progress and the practical
management of the tasks, planning and finding resources, solving problems, and
following up (Scouller, 2014). Such leaders help their employees accomplish their goals
and rasie their commitment by defining roles, establishing goals and methods of
evaluations, giving direction, and setting time lines, and clearly demonstrating how the
goals are to be achieved. Task-oriented leadership behavior raises commitment through

19
clarification of roles and objectives, monitoring individual performance and operations,
and short-term planning (Yukl, O’Donnell, & Taber, 2009).

2.2.2 Command and Control

Directive leadership negatively impacts commitment as it entails high degree of control

by the leaders without much freedom or participation of members in group decisions
(White & Lippitt, 1976). Directive leaders fully assume their roles and actively exercise
the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others (Holloway,
2012).Directive leadership is reflected in McGregor’s (1960) Theory X which is an
authoritarian behavior of leadership based on the assumption that employees find working
unpleasant and usually avoid working if possible. Employees in theory X are seen to
avoid responsibilities, they lack motivation, and must therefore be directed and even
threatened to deliver in order to achieve the organization goal (McGregor, 1960).

The directive leader explains followers’ roles, and followers clearly understand what they
are expected to do (House, 1996). Follower commitment is adversely affected by the
leader’s active exercise of the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others
(Stogdill, 1963; Holloway, 2012).Directive leaders use persuasion and argument
effectively, and exhibit strong convictions. They have superior orientation ensuring that
they influence and strive for higher status (Holloway, 2012). Authoritarian/autocratic
leadership behaviors involve focus on goals and tasks, and create lack of commitment by
denying others involvement in the decision-making process (Lewin & Lippitt, 1938).
“Leaders in powerful positions once thought that workers should be told what to do, how
to do it, when to do it, and who to do it with. They believed strict control was needed for
an organization to function efficiently and effectively” (Daft, 2010, pp 9). A distinct
characteristic of directive leaders is the use of a one-way communication method to
clarify what needs to be done, who is responsible for doing it, and how it needs to be done
(Reddin, 1970). Northouse (2016) noted that the primary concern of task-oriented leaders
is to ensure commitment to the attainment of goals. Task-oriented leaders are marked by
continual struggle to attain a sense of order (Sadler, 2005).The military is one group that
tends to historically value the use of authoritarian or autocratic over democratic
leadership behaviors (Bass, 1990a).

20
In a study of 30,735 United States Army personnel of different ranks, it was established
that superiors gave higher performance ratings to officers who displayed
authoritarian/autocratic leadership behaviors (Penner, Malone, Coughlin, & Herz 1973).
A study of foremen established that groups whose leaders portrayed goal-oriented
behaviors were more committed and productive (Dunteman & Bass, 1963). A study of
241 assistants in the production department of a large information-processing firm
concluded that effort, performance, and commitment were enhanced if the supervisors
demonstrated behaviors that were both task centered, clearly communicated and
supportive (Klimoski & Hayes, 1980). Scouller (2014) concluded that goal oriented
leaders excel in favourable situations and highly unfavourable situations. A situation is
favourable when there is high mutual trust, respect and confidence between leader and
followers; the task is clear and controllable; and the followers are committed and accept
the leader's power. The situation is unfavourable and commitment is low if the opposite is
true on all three points (Scouller & Chapman, 2014).

Performances of the organization members are secretly inspected and observed by

directive leaders. Telling the expectations to those under the command (followers),
planning, programming, controlling goal performance, and bringing out standards in
behavior are the behavior of directive leadership (Rollinson & Broadfield, 2002). Lussier
and Achua (2013) established that there are two situational factors that are used to
determine the leadership behavior that affects goal achievement through performance and
commitment: subordinate situational characteristics and environmental factors.
Subordinates characteristics can be authoritarianism, internal or external locus of control,
and their ability to perform goals. Environment situation factors are task structure, formal
authority or position power, and the work group (Lussier & Achua, 2013). Northouse
(2016) provides that this leadership behavior works best and creates high commitment
when group members are dogmatic and authoritarian and where the task structures are
ambiguous, tasks are complex, and rules are unclear. If the path is ambiguous, rules are
unclear, and there is complexity and that subordinates are authoritarian and dogmatic,
leaders should be directive to provide guidance and psychological structure (Northosue,
2016).

21
2.3 Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

Supportive leadership involves show of concern for status, well-being, and needs of
subordinates (Bartol & Martin, 1998). It also entails making the work place pleasant and
being friendly and approachable. Subordinate’s commitment to superior is described as
admiration and pride of one’s superior (Becker et al., 1996). Supervisory support is
positively correlated with organizational commitment and support from one’s supervisor
is positively correlated with affective commitment (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe,
2003). Supportive leadership behavior is one in which the leader creates a facilitating task
environment of psychological support, mutual trust and respect, helpfulness, and
friendliness (Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, & Johnson, 2011). It is the most effective
leadership behavior on subordinates (House, 1996). Supportive leaders could be described
as having characteristics such as being a model, appreciating and congratulating what has
been done, helping their subordinates, explaining reasons for criticisms, and set
constructive criticisms (House, 1996).

The supportive leader behaves in a responsive manner thus creating a friendly climate and
verbally recognizes subordinates’ achievement in a rewarding modus (House & Mitchell,
1974). This in turn creates organizational commitment among followers. Supportive
leaders demonstrate respect for subordinates, treat everyone equal, and concern for
subordinates’ well-being (House, 1971). The supportive behavior is suitable when
subordinates show a lack of confidence, inability to complete a task and little motivation
(Negron, 2008). These leaders are approachable and maintain an open-door policy,
friendly, and empathetic to their subordinates’ needs and well-being (Yukl, 2006).
Supportive leadership provides nurturance. This behavior is appropriate when group
members are unsatisfied, requiring affiliation and in need of human touch and tasks that
are repetitive, unchallenging, and mundane and mechanical (Northouse, 2016).

Subordinates who are uncertain of their capabilities, situation, and future appreciate this
behavior more (Dubrin, 2007). Supportive leaders expend extra effort to ensure the
workplace has an enjoyable environment, and they create an atmosphere of honor,
respect, and equality for their subordinates in the workplace. This behavior is most
appropriate for improving morale when tasks are boring, frustrating, repetitive, stressful,
and dissatisfying (Northouse, 2016). Subordinates with a higher need for affiliation
should prefer supportive leadership because friendly, concerned leadership will give these
22
subordinates greater satisfaction (Northouse, 2016). In addition, this behavior is similar to
the people-oriented or consideration behavior (Daft, 2005). Northouse (2016) concludes
that if the work is repetitive, not very challenging, mundane, and mechanical and if
subordinates are unsatisfied, need a human touch, and have a higher need for affiliation,
supportive leadership behavior would more best suitable. Such leaders would focus on
developing and providing a nurturing atmosphere.

2.3.1 Creation of a Positive Work Environment

Work environment involves the physical, geographical locations as well as the immediate
surroundings of the work place (Beiz, 2001). Typically, it involves other factors relating
to the place of employment such as security, additional perks and benefits of
employment. DeCremer (2012) observed that the quality of work environment has an
impact on the employees’ self-esteem, job satisfaction, and commitment. A distinct
element of supportive leadership behavior is one in which the leader creates a facilitating
task environment of psychological support, mutual trust and respect, helpfulness, and
friendliness (Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, & Johnson, 2011). Rollinson and Broadfield
(2002) observed that supportive leadership entails talking to people, supporting their
efforts, giving them hope, solving their problems, and participate them in decision-
making process.

Supportive leaders could be described as having characteristics such as being a model,

appreciating and congratulating what has been done, helping their subordinates,
explaining reasons for criticisms, and set constructive criticisms (Eubanks, Antes,
Friedrich, & Caughron, 2010). Leaders tend to stray from the path they follow for the
sake of happiness and satisfaction of their followers. In this context, House (1996)
highlighted that supportive leadership is the most effective leadership behavior on
subordinates. The response of employees to supportive leadership is increased
commitment, building support for the leader, defending the leader's response, having
increased respect for the leader, empathizing with the leader, and offering to find a joint
solution (Eubanks, Antes, Friedrich, & Caughron, 2010).

Dixon and Hart (2010) established that supportive leadership entails offering
camaraderie, friendliness, and concern for achievement and group members' well-being.
Supportive leadership is the Path-Goal leadership behavior most highly correlated with

23
reduced work group members' turnover intention (Dixon & Hart, 2010). Fleishman
(1953) measured the construct of consideration and summarized that supportive
leadership entails behaviors such as expressing appreciation, considering subordinates
feelings, and providing rewards for a job well-done (Fleishman, 1953). Relations-oriented
leaders motivate people by expressing the vision in terms of the values of the followers,
involving people in deciding how to achieve the vision, role-modeling the vision, through
coaching and feedback, and rewarding success (Sadler, 2005).

Leaders can create an atmosphere of commitment and togetherness where group members
share responsibility for reaching the goal or aim, hold shared expectations on the
performance level each has to contribute, and support each other as they progress. In so
doing, they put the group's goal ahead of their own individual personal priorities (Adair,
2004). Focus is on individual team member creating a high organization commitment.
That way, each individual is a member of a group with a shared goal and shared standards
of performance, however, he or she remains individual with personal needs including
financial recognition, safety, status, respect, praise, intimacy and fulfilment (Adair, 2004).
Meyer (1968) investigated the effect of leadership perceptions by studying two plants of
employees, one managed according to Maslow’s Theory X and the other according to
Theory Y. Conclusions of the study were that workers who were exposed to Theory Y
leadership behaviors had a more positive experience and as a result felt greater
responsibility, more warmth, and personally rewarded. Reichers (1986) claimed that
organizational commitment was a collection of commitments to multiple coalitions and
constituencies (for example, owners or managers, non-management employees, and
customers or clients).

Meyer and Allen (1997) offered that when measuring commitment to the organization as
a whole, we are probably measuring employees’ commitment to top management. In their
studies involving section heads and 419 non-supervisory employees in high and low
productivity sections Katz, Maccoby and Morse (1950) concluded that supervisors in
high-producing groups exhibited more employee-oriented behaviors. Fleishman & Harris
(1962) studied production foremen and their work groups and concluded that both
grievances and turnover were highest in groups having low consideration. If leaders
motivate employees, invest in training to enhance skills, invest in education, consider
their personal goals and finally empower them, it will definitely increase the level of

24
employee commitment with the organization (Bushra, Usman & Naveed, 2011).
Employees who believe that they are active makers of events and that their professional
promotion, pay rise and career general development depend on their own actions engage
in their work more than employees with external work locus of control. Organizations
emphasizing common values and conducting appropriate diversity training may be able to
improve employee satisfaction and diverse work group performance(Dixon & Hart,
2010). Scouller (2014) identifies group building and maintenance as leadership behaviors
that create and uphold a group identity, organizational commitment, and atmosphere of
shared responsibility for overall performance. The employees who sense that they
invested valuable services on behalf of the employing company which did not support
them through growth and recognition seek to restore the balance lost by lowering the
level of their organizational commitment (Wolowska, 2014). Stogdill (1963) that
consideration entails comfort, well-being, status, and contributions of followers.

2.3.2 Employees’ Consideration and Recognition

Consideration expresses the degree to which a leader shows concern and respect for their
followers, looks out for their welfare, and expresses appreciation and support (Bass,
1990a).According to Yukl (2006), recognizing behaviors show praise and appreciation to
others for effective performances, significant achievements, and important contributions
to the organization. Akhtar & Haleem (1979) noted that ‘employee oriented’, ‘employee-
centered,’ ‘supportive,’ and ‘considerate’ are various terms that have been used
interchangeably to describe relations-oriented behaviors. Hemphill (1949) referred
relations-oriented leadership as ‘consideration’ and entails existence of mutual trust,
respect, and a certain warmth and rapport between the supervisor and the team. Emphasis
was on deeper concern for needs of members and included involvement, two-way
communication, and high employee commitment. Studies have established that
employees are pleased with their team leaders and feel that they are being treated with
respect and are valued by management have more attachment with their organizations
(Stup, 2005). Research, experience, and common sense all point to a direct relationship
between a company’s success and its commitment to leadership practices that treat people
as assets (Lussier & Achua, 2013).

The role of a supportive leaders is to attract, energize and motivate people (Daft, 2010).
Such leaders enjoy working with people and helping them succeed (Lussier & Achua,
25
2013). Employees who believe that their professional promotion, pay rise and career
general development depend on their own actions engage in their work more than
employees with external work locus of control (Wolowska, 2014). Daft (2010) identifies
considerate leaders as sociable, provide open communication, develop teamwork, and are
oriented toward their subordinates. Relations-oriented leadership means being
emotionally connected to others, caring about others and building personal connections.
Where there is leadership, people become part of a community and feel that they are
contributing to something worthwhile (Daft, 2010). Supportive leaders value change,
empowerment, and relationships. Napolitano and Henderson (19980 concluded that
leadership is an attitude and the new paradigm shift is key in the creation of partnerships
with employees as a means of fostering personal and professional empowerment and, as a
result, enabling higher levels of commitment and contribution. Handling of people entails
building and upholding group unity (Scouller, 2014).

Supportive leaders engage with employees in the context of shared values and a shared
vision. They establish relationships of mutual trust between leaders and the led (Sadler,
2005). Daft (2010) notes that leadership is a people activity and which occurs among
people and that it is not something done to people. Leadership focuses on motivating and
inspiring people. The relations-orientation is based on the extent to which a manager has
personal relationships and behavior of such leaders are characterized by mutual trust,
respect for others’ ideas and a consideration for their feelings (Reddin, 1970). A study
involving 68 managers and machine operators established that both groups had higher
levels of satisfaction with their immediate supervisors when those supervisors exhibited
considerate leadership behaviors (Downey, Sheridan & Slocum, 1975). A research
involving 78 members of self-directed work teams concluded that individualized support
and intellectual stimulation resulted in higher levels of job satisfaction (Butler, Cantrell &
Flick, 1999).

Committed followers are an important part of the leadership process as this makes
followers to think for themselves and carry out assignments with energy and enthusiasm.
Relations-oriented leaders accept responsibility for mistakes or failures, give credit for
successes to other people, listen and discern what their followers need, set and role model
high moral standards, and they are vulnerable (Daft, 2010). Such leaders create
organizational commitment by aligning teams with broader ideas of what the organization

26
should be and why, creating a climate of trust across the entire organization, encouraging
their people to expand their thinking and abilities and to assume responsibility for their
actions. They communicate constantly and listen carefully, encouraging risk, even failure
as a learning experience (Daft, 2010). Lewin and Lippitt (1938) noted that democratic
leadership behaviors included praise, invitation to participate, and encouragement.
Democratic leadership behaviors included two-way interactions with workers and
emphasis on human relations (Nelson, 1950).

Although there is some support for the universal theory, the high-high leadership
behavior is not accepted as one of the best behavior in all situations” (Lussier & Achua,
2013, p. 75). A relationship oriented leader performs better in situations of intermediate
favourability, that is, where there is average mutual trust, some respect and confidence
between leader and followers; moderate clarity of the task; and mixed acceptance of the
leader's power (Daft, 2010). A group's ability to achieve the task and to continue to
achieve more tasks, is usually seriously undermined if leaders fail to attend to the 'team'
and 'individual' needs of the group, and to the related functional leadership
responsibilities (Adair, 2004). Organizational commitment is driven by drive for shared
performance and behavioral standards, diversity, work environment, conflict
management. At the individual level, the leader will need to know each member, personal
performance management and recognition (Scouller & Chapman, 2014).

2.3.3 Approachability and Empathy

Supportive leaders engage in relational-oriented behaviors and are empathetic and skilled
at sensing the needs of their followers (Derue. Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011).
Leaders high on support are friendly and approachable, are open to input from others, and
treat all group members as equals (Bass, 1990). Such leaders are agreeable individuals
and are more friendly and approachable, likely to help followers develop their strengths,
and respectful to followers (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). All of these
behaviors are akin to those articulated in the consideration and transformational theories
of leader behavior. There is little evidence that being a mean, tough manager is associated
with leadership success (Lussier & Achua, 2013). Leaders with high need for affiliation
tend to develop, maintain, and restore close personal relationships. “The Pygmalion
Effect proposes that leaders’ attitudes toward and expectations of followers, and their

27
treatment of them, explain and predict the behavior and performance of followers”
(Lussier & Achua, 2013, p. 48).

Supportive leadership includes leadership behavior such as talking to people, supporting

their efforts, giving them hope, solving their problems, and encouraging them in decision-
making process (Rollinson & Broadfield, 2002). It entails taking into consideration
emotions and personal expectations. Leaders tend to stray from the path they follow for
the sake of happiness and satisfaction of their followers (Mahdi, Mohd, & Almsafir,
2014). Relations-oriented leadership entails being a cheerleader, nurturer of champions,
hero finder, coach, facilitator and builder (Sadler, 2005). Unsuccessful managers do not
create commitment as a result of being insensitive to others, arrogant, betraying personal
trust, self-centred, and over-managing (McCall & Lombardo, 1983). Northouse (2016)
states that the main concern of relations-oriented leaders is the development of close,
interpersonal relationships. Such leaders involve a two-way communication method for
social and emotional support while seeking to make their employees to feel comfortable
about themselves, their co-workers, and their situations (Northouse, 2016).

Relations-oriented leaders seek to develop the careers of their employees, demonstrate an

understanding of their employees’ problems, provide employees with adequate
information to do the job, they allow individual autonomy in work, and they show
appreciation (Brown, 2003). Relations-oriented leadership behaviors are supporting
behaviors, developing behaviors, and recognizing behaviors (Yukl, 2006). Supporting
behaviors entail showing acceptance, concern, and confidence for the needs and feelings
of others. Developing behaviors provide potential benefits to new, inexperienced
supervisors, colleagues, peers, or subordinates. Recognizing behaviors show praise and
appreciation to others for effective performances, significant achievements, and important
contributions to the organization. Leaders who bring the best in their teams create a high
level of staff commitment towards the achievement of organizational goals (Arzi &
Farahbod, 2014).

2.4 Participative Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

House and Dessler (1974) described the participative leader as one who encourages
subordinates and considers their opinions and suggestions. Employee participation entails
providing an opportunity to participate in management decisions (Veluri, 2010). Strauss

28
(2006) observed that participation is a process that allows employees to exercise some
control over their work and the conditions under which they work. Northouse (2016)
observed that participative leadership provides involvement in instances where groups are
autonomous, requiring control and clarity, and tasks that are ambiguous, unclear and
unstructured. Higher employee participation has been found to lead to higher employee
performance and organizational commitment in general (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The
involvement of employees can help in many ways to the organizations looking for
creativity, changes in behaviors at work and in workplace decision making. (Njoroge,
2015).

Bass (1990a) concluded that during the 20 years of research between 1950 and 1970
participative leadership behaviors resulted in greater job satisfaction and productivity than
autocratic leadership behaviors. These leaders encourage employees to actively
participate in the decision-making process that determines how the group will achieve its
goals (Northouse, 2016). They do this through consultation, solicitation of employee
suggestions, and using employee ideas in the decision-making process (Daft, 2010). This
behavior is most likely to enhance the morale of subordinates who are well motivated and
engaged in tasks that are non-repetitive (Dubrin, 2007).

Northouse (2016) observed that internal locus of control suggests that subordinates
believe that the decisions they make affect what happens in their lives, while external
locus of control suggests that subordinates believe that what happens in their lives is
beyond their control (Northouse, 2016). Subordinates with an internal locus of control
should find participative leadership more satisfying because it gives a greater feeling of
being in charge and of being an important part of the decision-making process
(Northouse, 2016). Northouse (2016) concludes that when the path is ambiguous, the way
is unclear, the task is unstructured, and subordinates have a need for autonomy, control,
and clarity, the leadership behavior should be participative to invite subordinates into the
decision-making process.

2.4.1 Employee Job Involvement

Job involvement has been defined differently as the extent to which the individual
identifies psychologically with hislher job (Blau, 1985b). Bass (1965) described job
involvement as the degree to which an individual is actively participating in hislher job.

29
Khan, Hafeez, Rizvi, Amna and Asma (2012) established that job involvement is
positively related to affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment. In a study that included 227 nurses seeking to investigate the relationship
between the three types of commitment and resource enrichment, Cohen and Kirchmeyer
(1995) established that employees who were staying with the organization because they
‘wanted to’ or felt they ‘ought to’, indicated higher involvement and enjoyment with
work activities. On the converse, employees who were staying with the organization
because they felt they ‘needed to’ indicated less involvement and dissatisfaction with
work activities (Cohen & Kirchmeyer 1995). Employees who believe that they are active
makers of events engage in their work and have high organizational commitment
(Wolowska, 2014).

Organizational commitment requires leadership that blends concern for both people and
organizational aims by using a collaborative teamwork approach, and plenty of
consultation enabling the development of a shared (not imposed) motivation to achieving
the organization's goals (Daft, 2010). Participative behaviors entail tolerance of freedom
where the leader allows staff members scope for initiative, decision, and action (Lucas,
Messner, Ryan & Sturm, 1992).

Participative leadership and instrumental leadership affect normative commitment.

Therefore, participation and encouragement of employees in the decision making process
in addition to the clarification of organizational goals and expectation from employees by
managers (Pandey & Khare, 2012). Research results indicate that participative leadership
and instrumental leadership affect normative commitment. Participation and
encouragement of employees in the decision making process in addition to the
clarification of organizational goals and expectation from employees by managers
(Meyer, et al., 2013). Tolerance of freedom – allows staff members scope for initiative,
decision, and action. Tolerance of uncertainty – is able to tolerate uncertainty and
postponement without anxiety or upset (Bass, 1990a). Demand reconciliation – reconciles
conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system. Predictive accuracy – exhibits
foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Integration – maintains a close-knit
organization and resolves inter member conflicts. Holloway, J.B. (2012).Employee
participation has a moderating effect on the relationship between integrative leadership
behavior and organizational commitment (Njoroge, 2015). In addition, employee

30
participation moderates the relationship between integrative leadership and affective and
normative commitment.

2.4.2 Delegation and Discretion

Delegation entails assigning new responsibilities to subordinates and affording them the
authority and discretion to carry them out (Fernandez, 2005).The leader’s main purpose is
to make sure there is leadership - to ensure that all dimensions of leadership are being
addressed. This means the leader does not always have to lead from the front; he or she
can delegate, or share part of their responsibility for leadership (Daft, 2010). However,
the buck still stops with the leader. While the leader will have a responsibility to ensure
there is a vision or a goal, that doesn't mean he or she has to come up with the vision on
their own. Another way of leading is to co-create the vision with one's colleagues. Such
leaders may choose to be out in front or in among the group (Scouller, 2014).
Organization should influence psychological climate in the place of work as the
employees’ positive evaluation of it makes them feel stronger bonds with the company
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). It may, on one hand, result in higher work discipline such as
reduced absenteeism. People committed to the organization, particularly in an affective
way rarely seek a new place of employment, which allows, among the others, to reduce
costs connected with training new employees (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Gellatly, 1995).

The influence of management is marked by raising psychological safety level among the
employees, whereas, in a state company, by the rise in work meaningfulness. Njoroge
(2015) concluded that employee participation should not be ignored if organizational
commitment is to be increased and management should come up with creative and
effective ways of increasing employee participation in order to increase organizational
commitment.

2.4.3 Employee Consultation

Consultation entails involving an organization’s employees in service of cultivating the

conditions that will lead to an organization’s ultimate implementation success (Schein,
1999). Consultation implies a commitment to joint working, two-way communication and
jointly exploring options (Dix & Oxenbridge, 2003). Participative leaders consult the
group when making decisions, and get group approval in important matters before going

31
ahead(Derue. Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). Daft (2010) observes that there
has been a shift in leader mind-set from a self-centred focus to emphasis on a higher
purpose. Leaders are increasingly moving from the celebrity ‘leader-as-hero’ to a humble,
people developer for the achievement of the organizational ambition (Daft, 2010).
Leaders need to have self-mastery as this is key to developing leadership presence and
attitude towards others, as well as letting leaders connect with their values, create
commitment, thus enabling them to be effective servant-leaders.

True leadership presence is synonymous with authenticity, expressing one's highest

values and an attitude of service (Scouller, 2014). Tolerance of uncertainty means that the
leader is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset. Such
leaders also demand reconciliation where they seek to reconcile conflicting demands and
reduce disorder to system(Lucas, Messner, Ryan & Sturm, 1992).Predictive accuracy
means that such leaders exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately.
Integration allows the leader to maintain a close-knit organization and resolve inter-
member conflicts.

2.5 Achievement-Oriented Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

Bartol and Martin (1998) described achievement-oriented leadership as involving setting

of challenging goals, and high degree of confidence in subordinates. House and Dessler,
(1974) described the achievement-oriented leader as one who encourages performance
excellence, sets challenging goals, emphasizes excellence in performance, and shows
confidence that subordinates will attain high standards of performance. Achievement-
oriented leaders express a great deal of confidence in the abilities of employees to set and
achieve very demanding goals (Yukl, 2006). The leader sets a very high standard and
continuously seeks to improve performance above that initial standard (Daft, 2005).

Achievement oriented leadership is most appropriate for improving commitment and

morale when subordinates have a high need to achieve and are working on tasks that are
characterized by variety and ambiguity (Dubrin, 2007). Northouse (2016) concludes that
if the path is ambiguous, the task is challenging and complex, and subordinates have high
expectations for what they can achieve and a higher need to excel, the leaders should be
achievement-oriented to ensure that they challenge subordinates. Leaders are effective

32
when they assist subordinates in the achievement of their goals by guiding, directing, and
coaching them along the right path (Northouse, 2016).

Achievement-oriented leadership is both high-directive and high supportive behavior and

occurs when “the leader sets difficult goals, expects followers to perform at their highest
level, and rewards them for doing so” (Lussier & Achua, 2013, p. 119). Hackett and Allen
(1995) established that contingent reward had a strong relationship with normative
commitment and management-by-exception had the strongest relationship with
continuance commitment. A study of manual workers established that supervisors who
obtained rewards based on goal achievement by workers had a positive effect on
performance (Patchen, 1962). There is a positive relationship between contingent reward
and the outcome variables of job satisfaction and productivity (Brown & Dodd, 1999).
Scouller (2014) observes that leadership functions should entail motivating future or
purpose(to inspire people to combine and work towards willingly), uphold group spirit
and standards, and attention to individuals (such as, motivation, confidence, selection, and
feelings of inclusion to sustain organizational commitment and individual effectiveness.

Stogdill (1963) observed that achievement-oriented behaviors entail production emphasis

with leaders applying pressure for productive output. Initiation of structure is a second
element of such leaders where they define their own roles while allowing followers to
know what is expected. A third element of this behavior is role assumption where the
leader actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others.
Use of persuasion and argument effectively while exhibiting strong convictions also
defines task-oriented leadership. Another characteristic for such leaders is superior
orientation where such individuals have cordial relations with superiors, maintain
influence with them, and strive for higher status (Lucas, Messner, Ryan & Sturm, 1992).

The achievement-oriented leader “sets challenging goals, expects subordinates to perform

at their highest level, continuously seeks improvement in performance and shows a high
degree of confidence that the subordinates will assume responsibility, put forth effort and
accomplish challenging goals” (House & Mitchell, 1974, p. 83). The achievement-
oriented behavior is suited for unclear tasks and subordinates who may need a morale
booster to increase their confidence in ability to accomplish the given goal (Negron,
2008). This in turn creates commitment to the organization.

33
2.5.1 Setting Challenging Goals

The concept of goal is similar in meaning to the concepts of purpose and intent (Locke,
1969). It is what an individual is trying to accomplish; it is the object or aim of an action.
Other frequently used concepts that are also similar in meaning to that of goal include
performance standard, quota (a minimum amount of work or production), work norm,
task (a piece of work to be accomplished), objective, deadline, and budget (a spending
goal or limit). Goal setting in the organization has great impact and significant positive
correlation with organizational commitment, means if goal setting is effectively planned
then it will lead to enhance organizational commitment (Ashraf, Jaffri, Sharif & Khan,
2012). Goal setting might be called "stimulus control" where goal setting, environment
and acceptance (Locke, 1968). Goal setting is the primary factor which is most important
to enhance organizational commitment because it has got positive relation with employee
engagement which resultantly made a positive impact on engagement of employee at
work place (Yukl, 2006). Organizational commitment can be achieved by correlating
goal setting, employee engagement, and work place optimism in a positive way (Ashraf,
Jaffri, Sharif & Khan, 2012). Employee performance within organization has significant
relation with organizational commitment (Siddique et al., 2006).

When goals are specific and challenging, when they are used to evaluate performance and
linked to feedback on results, and create commitment and acceptance (Lunenburg, 2011).
The motivational impact of goals may be affected by moderators such as ability and self-
efficacy. Learning goals create more organizational commitment than performance goals
(Luthans, 2011). Learning goal orientation enables employees to be proactive, problem
solve, be creative and open to new ideas, and adapt to new and changing situations.
Scouller (2014) states that leadership starts with setting a purpose, vision and goals that
followers care about – that motivate or even inspire them. Organizational commitment
occurs when leaders and followers work together towards a common outcome, a desired
future or shared purpose that motivates them towards that preferred outcome and creates
commitment to the organization (Lussier & Achua, 2013). Leaders with drive seek
achievement, possess high energy and tenacity, and have a hunger to achieve goals. Their
ambition enables them to set challenging goals while their initiative enables them to
achieve those goals (Daft, 2010).

34
Highly intelligent and conscientious leaders will be especially adept at ensuring their
followers have sufficient role clarity, structure, and goals to help facilitate task
performance (Derue. Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). Reddin (1970) states that
achievement orientation is based on the extent to which managers create commitment and
direct their peoples’ efforts towards goal accomplishment. “Leaders adopt a personal
approach to goals which reflect their own visions or deeply held beliefs” (Sadler, 2005,
pp 21). Behavior is characterized by planning, organizing and controlling and main
preoccupation is about the quality of wanting to get a job done (Reddin, 1970).

Goal focused leaders provide their employees with the necessary motivation, equipment,
supplies, and technical assistance for completing the task (Northouse, 2016). Such leaders
ensure that their teams have specific goals, an established group structure with clear roles,
and transparent metrics upon which to compare their performance (Derue. Nahrgang,
Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). Production emphasis ensures that goal oriented leadership
apply pressure for productive output (Stogdill, 1963; Holloway, 2012). This then creates
follower commitment to the attainment of the set goals. Achievement of the set goals
releases energy and creates motivation and inspiration. Effective leaders rely on intuition,
focus on desired outcomes without assuming constraints, anticipate events and adopt
preventive approaches, take systematic perspectives and have inner control and personal
masterly (Sadler, 2005). The focus on compliance on set goals entails high concern for
production and low concern for people is a “produce or perish” behavior (Blake and
Mouton, 1985). While it could be a viable behavior for a short period, this approach is not
sustainable, especially where followers have the option to walk away (Scouller &
Chapman, 2014).

2.5.2 Clarity of Roles

The concept of role clarity refers to the presence or absence of adequate role-relevant
information due either to restriction of this information or to variations of the quality of
the information (Lyons, 1971). Role clarity can also refer to the subjective feeling of
having as much or not as much role relevant information as the person would like to have.
Role clarity is positively related to affective, normative and perceived high sacrifice
supervisory commitment, but not related organizational commitment (Panaccio &
Vandernberghe, 2011). There is a direct positive link between role clarity increased
satisfaction and employee commitment (Lyons, 1971). Role clarity interacts with
35
competence to affect employees’ dedication and commitment. Work engagement also
predicts employees’ intention to leave.

Northouse (2016) noted that when there is task clarity and structure, well-established
norms and customs, and a clear formal authority system, subordinates will not need
leaders to provide goal clarity or coaching in how to achieve these goals. Leaders in this
situation may be viewed as more controlling than necessary, having little or no empathy,
and unnecessary. Hemphill (1949) undertook a research on leadership behaviors and
identified a specific form of leadership behavior called ‘initiating structure’. This
behavior focuses on clarity of roles, planning ahead, and push for production and focus on
overt attempts to achieve organization goals (Fleishman & Harris, 1962). Such leaders
clearly define their own roles and let followers know what is expected of them (Stogdill,
1963; Holloway, 2012).Nelson (1950) concluded that task-directed leadership behaviors
involved initiating structure, providing information about tasks, issuing rules, and
threatening punishment for disobedience. Hodge (1976) undertook a study on first-line
managers and established that such managers felt more satisfied with superiors who
displayed higher levels of initiating structure behaviors.

House (1971) posited that leadership behaviors of clarifying goals for employees as well
as explaining the paths to achieving those goals increase the opportunities for goal
achievement. Leadership behaviors of consideration and initiating structure influence
employee satisfaction and motivation to pursue goals and in turn create employee
affective commitment (Brown, 2003). Stogdill (1963) reviewed the types of behaviors
that represented initiating structure. Initiating structure applies pressure for product
output, clearly defines own role, and lets followers know what is expected. Initiating
structure included task-oriented behaviors such as offering approaches to problem
solving, trying out new ideas, and making task assignments (Stogdill, 1963). A research
in a one state mental health institution concluded that initiating structure leadership
behaviors were more highly related to group performance than consideration behaviors
(Larson, Hunt, & Osborn, 1974).

A key feature of performance oriented behaviors is determination of standards of task

performance, and ensuring group members perform up to those standards. Similarly,
achievement oriented leaders make clear what is expected in terms of task performance
(Derue. Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). Yukl, O’Donnell and Taber (2009)
36
further explain that clarifying behaviors include assigning tasks, explaining job
responsibilities, and setting performance expectations. Monitoring behaviors will entail
inspecting the progress and quality of work. Planning behaviors cover determination of
staffing requirements and how to optimally use them to attain the goals and objectives of
the organization (Yukl, O’Donnell & Taber, 2009). Sadler (2005) established that
leadership at lower levels of organizations emphasizes interpersonal leadership with main
focus on achievement of short term goals and facilitation of personal involvement and
team work. Institutional leadership exists at higher levels of an organization and main
focus is on developing and maintaining systems of believes and values (Sadler, 2005).

2.5.3 Reward for Achievement of Goals

Tangible rewards are non-cash incentives that have a monetary value (Long and Shields
2010). They are distinct from other forms of recognition that have no (little) monetary
value (Webb, Jeffrey & Schulz, 2010). Incentive programs providing tangible rewards
may be short-term in nature Performance-based rewards have traditionally taken the form
of cash bonuses although organizations are increasingly providing tangible rewards which
entail non-cash incentives that have monetary value (Long and Shields2010). Providing
rewards for goal attainment can increase effort and strengthen individuals’ goal
commitment, which can result in organizational commitment and better performance
(Prendergast, 1999). Greater positive affect and anticipated satisfaction with tangible
rewards will lead to higher goal attractiveness and commitment compared to cash
(Klein1991).

Goal theory suggests that linking rewards to goal attainment is more likely to motivate
effort when individuals have a reasonable expectancy of achieving the goal (Klein 1991).
Employees eligible for tangible rewards are more committed to achieving self-selected
goals and, ultimately, performance is better among those receiving cash rewards, due to
the significant positive effects on employee goal selection (Webb, Jeffrey & Schulz,
2010). Commitment and motivation and are increased by clarifying the follower’s path to
the rewards for meeting performance expectations that are set, or increasing the rewards
that the follower values and desires (Derue. Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011;
Lussier & Achua, 2013). The path-goal leadership model is linked to task-oriented
behavior and provides that the leader’s responsibility is to increase follower’s motivation
by clarifying the behaviors necessary for accomplishment of tasks and rewards (Daft,
37
2010). Lussier and Achua (2013) conclude that path clarification occurs when a leader
helps followers to identify and learn the behaviors that will lead to successful task
accomplishment and organizational rewards. Scouller (2014) established that group
purpose and task behaviors set the group's aims and get the job done.

2.6 Chapter Summary

The chapter covered the literature review relating to employees’ perceptions of their
immediate supervisors’ directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented
leadership behaviors and the effect they have on their organizational commitment.
Literature was presented as per the research question. The next chapter is on research
design, population and sampling design, data collection methods, research procedures and
the various data analysis methods.

38
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the methodology that the study that was used in data collection,
research design, population and sampling design, data collection methods, research
procedures and data analysis methods.

3.2 Research Design

Research design is the method that was used to carry out the research. Research design is
a ‘framework for the collection and analysis of data to answer research questions and
meet research objectives providing reasoned justification for choice of data sources,
collection methods and analysis techniques” (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012, p. 680).
‘Research design’ refers to the logical structure of the inquiry and articulates what data is
required, from whom, and how it is going to answer the research question (Yin, 2009).
Yin (2009) notes that research design deals with logical problems as opposed to logistical
problems.

Descriptive research design was used to enable the researcher to generalize the findings to
a larger population. Descriptive research was more appropriate as the study sought to
build a profile about the effect of leadership behaviors on employee commitment. The
purpose of descriptive research was to produce an accurate representation of persons,
events or persons (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). Descriptive research describes
an area of interest, factually and accurately (Isaac & Michael, 1977). It seeks to
systematically describe facts and characteristics of a given population. The main concern
of the descriptive survey is to address specific characteristics of a particular population
(Gill & Johnson, 2014). ‘This will ensure that any subsequent assessments of attributes of
that population are accurate and the attributes are generalizable” (Gill & Johnson, 2014,
p. 126).

The dependent variable of the study was the organizational commitment while
achievement-oriented, directive, supportive and participative leadership behaviors were
the independent variables. The dependent variable changes in response changes in other

39
variables (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). It is the phenomena whose variation the
researcher is trying to explain or understand (Gill & Johnson, 2014). The predictor or
independent variables included the path-goal theory four leadership behaviors: directive,
supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented. The criterion or dependent variable
was employee commitment to the organization. The predictors of organizational
commitment generally occur in organizational characteristics, personal characteristics,
and work experiences (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Therefore, control variables for the study
was the subordinate’s age, education, gender, and tenure in the organization.

3.3 Population and Sampling Design

3.3.1 Population

Bless, Higson-Smith and Sithole (2013) described population as the complete set of
events, people or things which the research findings are to be applied. The research
populations for this study were all full time (352) employees of East African Breweries
based in the company head office in Nairobi.

Table 3.1: Target Population

Profession Frequency (F)

Sales & Marketing 108

Finance 62

HR & Administration 48

Supply 110

Corporate Affairs 24

Total 352

3.3.2 Sampling Design

3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame

The sampling frame is the complete list of all the cases in a population and from which
the sample is drawn (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). Cooper and Schindler describe
a sampling frame as a list of all population units from which the sample is selected. The

40
researcher obtained the list of names of the EABL and Diageo employees in Tusker
House from the HR department.

3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique

This study used a stratified random sampling procedure. Babbie (2013) describes
stratified random sampling as a modification of random sampling in which the population
is divided into two or more strata based on one or more attributes. In order to have full
representatives of the different professions in the company, participants were divided into
functional categories (that is, finance, sales, marketing, engineering, supply chain,
information technology, administration, and human resources).

3.3.2.3 Sample Size

In order to generalize from a random sample and avoid sampling errors and biases, a
random sample needs to be of adequate size (Gill & Johnson, 2014). If well chosen, a
sample of about 10% of the population cans often good reliability (Kotler, 2001). A
sample size of 10% was randomly selected from each stratum to ensure adequate
representation. According to Girden (2001), sample sizes need to be large enough to
detect difference, particularly if a difference of a particular magnitude is anticipated. This
study sampled 176 respondents constituting 50% of the 352 employees of EABL based in
Nairobi.

Table 3.2: Sample Size

Profession Frequency (F) Percentage (%) Sample Size (n)

Sales & Marketing 108 50% 54

Finance 62 50% 31

HR & Administration 48 50% 24

Supply 110 50% 55

Corporate Affairs 24 50% 12

Total 352 50% 176

41
3.4 Data Collection Methods

The research used a questionnaire based on the research questions. A questionnaire is a

data collection technique in which each participant responds to the same of questions in a
predetermined manner (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). Section one solicited
information on demographics including gender, job group, years of service in EABL, and
years of reporting to the current supervisor. Section two was on the leadership behaviors.
This included items from the path-goal questionnaire covering directive, supportive
participative, and achievement-oriented leadership behaviors. Each of the items was rated
using a 5-point Likert scale with anchors labeled: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. Section three solicited
information on organizational commitment.

The components of organizational commitment to be captured were affective,

continuance and normative commitment. A modified Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Meyer and Allen (1997was used to obtain data on
organizational commitment. Examples of items from the OCQ questionnaire included:
affective commitment – I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this
organization; continuance commitment - it would be very hard for me to leave my
organization right now, even if I wanted to; and normative commitment - this
organization deserves my loyalty. The perceived leadership behavior items was linked to
the path-goal leadership questionnaire which provides information about the four
leadership behaviors (Northouse, 2004). For the purpose of this study, the path-goal
instrument was modified from a 7-point scale to the 5-point Likert scale, and from a
leader-rated instrument to a subordinate-rated instrument. The later aspect of the
modification changed the verbiage from “I” to “my supervisor.” For example, “My
supervisor asks for suggestions from subordinates concerning how to carry out
assignments”.

3.5 Research Procedures

Instrument of the study was developed by the researcher based on the research questions.
Seek prior approval from the organization where the study was being conducted. The
researcher obtained a letter of introduction from USIU. Pilot study was conducted looking
at a sample of 20 respondents (who are not part of target sample size) to determine

42
reliability and validity of the instrument. A pretest of the tool was conducted to check for
consistency, ease of understanding and later reviewed to incorporate the feedback from
the pre-test results. The researcher used online mode of administration for the study
(Survey Monkey). At the start of the survey, there was a reassurance to respondents that
the exercise was strictly confidential and that participation was fully optional. This was
useful considering that there was a risk of participants being afraid of being victimized as
a result of their responses.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods

Data analysis entailed descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical inference refers to
the process of coming to conclusions about a particular population based on the data
describing the sample (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). The researcher used
quantitative methods for data collection and data entry by use of SPSS Version 22. Before
the field data collection process, the researcher reviewed and discussed the methodology
and the questionnaire with the Supervisor. Descriptive statistics provided measures of
central tendency (mean, mode, median) and measures of variability (frequency
distribution, standard deviation, range) of the sample. Inferential analysis was undertaken
sample statistics to make general conclusions (inferences) about population. Correlation
analysis was undertaken to establish the relationships between each of the predictor
variables and the dependent variable.

3.7 Chapter Summary

Chapter three covered the research methodology by emphasizing on the research design,
sampling design and the population. Also covered was the data collection methods,
procedure of sampling and data analysis and presentation. The study adopted a simple
random sampling technique. Chapter four presents the results and findings.

43
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, results and findings are presented. Tables and figures are used in the
presentation of the results and findings. The presentation is done as per the research
questions. First the response rate is presented, the background information and finally the
results and findings as per the research questions.

4.1.2 Response Rate

The response rate for this study was 58% representing 102 respondents out of the 176
targeted as illustrated in figure 4.1

Response Rate

Non Response
42%
Response
58%

Figure 4.1: Response Rate

4.2 General Information

4.2.1 Gender Representation

Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of gender in this study. From the figure, 50% of the
respondents in this study were male whereas were 50% of were female.

44
 Gender

Female Male
50% 50%

Figure 4.2: Gender Representation

4.2.2 Age Bracket

Figure 4.3 shows the age brackets of respondents. From the figure, the majority of the
respondents accounting for 44.1% were in the age bracket between 30 and 39 years,
followed by the age bracket between 20 and 29 years at 36.3% and 16.7% and 2.9% for
the age between 40 and 49 years and 50 and 59 years respectively.

Age bracket

44.1%
50.0%
36.3%
40.0%
30.0% 16.7%
20.0%
2.9%
10.0%
Age bracket
0.0%
20- 29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years

Figure 4.3: Age Bracket

4.2.3 Classification of the Respondents by Functions

The results in figure 4.4 show the number of responses by the functions in which they
belong, where by the majority of the responses came from Supply department accounting

45
for 33.3% of the respondents, 20.6% come from Human Resources, followed by Sales &
Marketing at 17.6%, Finance at 16.7% and finally Corporate at 11.8%.

Function/Department

33.3%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0% 20.6%
17.6% 16.7%
20.0%
15.0% 11.8%

10.0%
5.0% 0.0%
0.0%
Sales & Supply Finance Corporate Human Others
Marketing Resource

Figure 4.4: Functions

4.2.4 Working Experience

Figure 4.5 shows the level of experience from the respondents. From the figure, majority
of respondents accounting for over 75% had worked for EABL for not more than 5 years.
21.6% for between 6 and 10 years and only 2.9% had worked for EABL for between 11
and 20 years

11-20
years Working Experience
3%

6-10 years
22%

Up to 5 years
75%

.
Figure 4.5: Working Experience

46
4.2.4 Reporting

Figure 4.6 shows the period by which respondents have been reporting to the current line
managers. From the figure, majority of respondents accounting for 55.9% had reported to
the current line manager for less than a year, 43.1% for a period between 1 and 5 years
and only 1% for a period between 6 and 10 years.

Reporting

55.9%
60.0% 43.1%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% 1.0%
10.0% Reporting
0.0%
Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years

Figure 4.6: Reporting

4.2.5 Employees Organizational Commitment

On whether the employees were happy to spend the rest of their career at their current
organization, 38.2% agreed, 24.5% strongly agreed, 17.6% remained neutral, whereas
10.8% and 8.8% disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively as shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Employees Organizational Commitment

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 9 8.8
Disagree 11 10.8
Neutral 18 17.6
Agree 39 38.2
Strongly Agree 25 24.5
Total 102 100.0

4.2.6 Employees’ Future at the Organization

The respondents were asked whether it will be hard for them to leave the organization
right now even if they wanted to. This had 30.4% of respondents agreeing, 28.4%

47
disagreed, 26.5% remained neutral, 9.8% strongly disagreed and 4.9% strongly agreed as
shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Employees’ Future at the Organization

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 10 9.8
Disagree 29 28.4
Neutral 27 26.5
Agree 31 30.4
Strongly Agree 5 4.9
Total 102 100.0

4.2.7 Organization Loyalty

The respondents were asked whether the organization deserved their loyalty. Majority of
respondents accounting for 36.3% agreed, 28.4% strongly agreed, 14.7% disagreed,
13.7% remained neutral and 6.9% strongly disagreed as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3:Organization Loyalty

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 7 6.9
Disagree 15 14.7
Neutral 14 13.7
Agree 37 36.3
Strongly Agree 29 28.4
Total 102 100.0

4.3DirectiveLeadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

In this section, the information sought was on directive leadership behaviors and
organizational commitment. Descriptive analysis as well as inferential statistics was used.

4.3.1 Subordinates’ Expectations

The respondents were asked whether their managers let subordinates know what is
expected of them. The responses had 33.3% and 30.4% agreeing and strongly agreeing
respectively, 19.6% remained neutral, 8.8% strongly disagreed and 7.8% disagreed as
shown in Table 4.4.

48
Table 4.4: Subordinates’ Expectations

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 9 8.8
Disagree 8 7.8
Neutral 20 19.6
Agree 34 33.3
Strongly Agree 31 30.4
Total 102 100.0

4.3.2 Keeping Subordinates Informed

The respondents were asked whether managers inform subordinates about what needs to
be done and how it needs to be done. The responses had 33.3% and 28.4% agreeing and
strongly agreeing respectively, 17.6% disagreed, 11.8% remained neutral and 8.8%
strongly disagreed as shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Keeping Subordinates Informed

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 9 8.8
Disagree 18 17.6
Neutral 12 11.8
Agree 34 33.3
Strongly Agree 29 28.4
Total 102 100.0

4.3.3 Following Rules and Regulations

The respondents were asked whether managers ask subordinates to follow standard rules
and regulations. The responses had 35.3% and 34.3% strongly agreeing and agreeing
respectively, 13.7% remained neutral, 8.8% disagreed and 7.8% strongly disagreed as
shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Following Rules and Regulations

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 8 7.8
Disagree 9 8.8
Neutral 14 13.7
Agree 35 34.3
Strongly Agree 36 35.3
Total 102 100.0

49
4.3.4 Performance Expectations

The respondents were asked whether managers explain the level of performance that is
expected of subordinates. The responses had 34.3% and 26.5% strongly agreeing and
agreeing respectively, 17.6% remained neutral, 15.7% disagreed and 5.9% strongly
disagreed as shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Performance Expectations

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 6 5.9
Disagree 16 15.7
Neutral 18 17.6
Agree 27 26.5
Strongly Agree 35 34.3
Total 102 100.0

4.3.5 Clarity of Expectations

The respondents were asked whether managers give clear explanations of what is
expected of subordinates on the job. The responses had 27.5% each for agreed and
strongly agreed, disagree had 17.6% and those strongly disagree and remained neutral had
13.7% for each, 17.6% disagreed 13.7% strongly disagreed as shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Clarity of Expectations

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 14 13.7
Disagree 18 17.6
Neutral 14 13.7
Agree 28 27.5
Strongly Agree 28 27.5
Total 102 100.0

4.4Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

In this section, the information sought was on supportive leadership behaviors and
organizational commitment. Descriptive analysis as well as inferential statistics was used.

50
4.4.1 Working Relationship

The respondents were asked whether managers maintain a friendly working relationship
with subordinates. The responses had 31.4% and 28.4% agreeing and strongly agreeing
respectively, 15.7% remained neutral, 11.8% disagreed and 10.8% strongly disagreed as
shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Working Relationship

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 11 10.8
Disagree 12 11.8
Neutral 16 15.7
Agree 32 31.4
Strongly Agree 29 28.4
Total 100 98.0

4.4.2 Positive Gesturesfrom Managers

This section explored whether managers do little things to make it pleasant for employees
to feel as part of the group. Up to 27.5% of the respondents agreed, 24.5% remained
neutral, 14.7% strongly agreed and 16.7% for each disagreed and strongly disagreed as
shown in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Positive Gestures from Managers

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 17 16.7
Disagree 17 16.7
Neutral 25 24.5
Agree 28 27.5
Strongly Agree 15 14.7
Total 102 100.0

4.4.3 Subordinates’ Personal Feelings

On whether managers are considerate of subordinates’ personal feelings, the responses

were as follows: 29.4% agreed, 20.6% strongly agreed, 18.6% remained neutral and
17.6% and 13.7% disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively as shown in Table 4.11.

51
Table 4.11: Subordinates’ Personal Feelings
Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 14 13.7
Disagree 18 17.6
Neutral 19 18.6
Agree 30 29.4
Strongly Agree 21 20.6
Total 102 100.0

4.4.4 Problem Solving

On whether managers help subordinates overcome problems that stop them from carrying
out their tasks, the responses were as follows: 32.4% agreed, 21.6% strongly agreed,
20.6% remained neutral and 15.7% and 9.8% disagreed and strongly disagreed
respectively as shown in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12: Problem Solving

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 10 9.8
Disagree 16 15.7
Neutral 21 20.6
Agree 33 32.4
Strongly Agree 22 21.6
Total 102 100.0

4.4.5 Subordinates’ Needs

On whether managers behave in a manner that is thoughtful of subordinates’ personal

needs, the responses were as follows: 31.4% agreed, 22.5% remained neutral, 21.6%
strongly agreed and 13.7% and 10.8% disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively as
shown in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13: Subordinates’ Needs

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 11 10.8
Disagree 14 13.7
Neutral 23 22.5
Agree 32 31.4
Strongly Agree 22 21.6
Total 102 100.0

52
4.5 Participative Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

In this section, the information sought was on participative leadership behaviors and
organizational commitment. Descriptive analysis as well as inferential statistics was used.

4.5.1 Consultation with Subordinates

On whether managers consult with subordinates facing problems, the responses were as
follows: 27.5% agreed, 24.5% strongly agreed, 20.6% disagreed, 17.6% remained neutral
and 9.8% strongly disagreed as shown in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Consultation with Subordinates

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 10 9.8
Disagree 21 20.6
Neutral 18 17.6
Agree 28 27.5
Strongly Agree 25 24.5
Total 102 100.0

4.5.2 Listening to Subordinates

On whether managers listen respectively to their subordinates’ ideas and suggestions, the
responses were as follows: 29.4% strongly agreed, 25.5% agreed, 22.5% remained neutral
and 14.7% and 7.8% disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively as shown in Table
4.15.

Table 4.15: Listening to Subordinates

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 8 7.8
Disagree 15 14.7
Neutral 23 22.5
Agree 26 25.5
Strongly Agree 30 29.4
Total 102 100.0

53
4.5.3 Incoporating Subordinates’ Inputs

On whether managers act after consulting their subordinates, the responses were as
follows: 35.3% remained neutral, 20.6% disagreed, 18.6% agreed, 14.7% strongly
disagreed and 10.8% strongly agreed as shown in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16: Incoporating Subordinates’ Inputs

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 15 14.7
Disagree 21 20.6
Neutral 36 35.3
Agree 19 18.6
Strongly Agree 11 10.8
Total 102 100.0
4.5.4 Subordinate Involvement on Assignments

On whether managers ask for suggestions from subordinates concerning how to carry out
assignments, the responses were as follows: 29.4% agreed, 26.5% remained neutral,
16.7% strongly agreed, 14.7% disagreed and 12.7% strongly disagreed as shown in Table
4.17.

Table 4.17: Subordinate Invovlement on Assignments

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 13 12.7
Disagree 15 14.7
Neutral 27 26.5
Agree 30 29.4
Strongly Agree 17 16.7
Total 102 100.0

4.5.5 Subordinates’Input on Choice of Assignments

On whether managers ask subordinates for suggestions on what assignments should be

made, the responses were as follows: 28.4% remained neutral, 22.5% agreed, 18.6%
disagreed, 15.7% strongly agreed and 14.7% disagreed and strongly disagreed
respectively as shown in Table 4.18.

54
Table 4.18: Subordinates’ Input on Choice of Assignments

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 15 14.7
Disagree 19 18.6
Neutral 29 28.4
Agree 23 22.5
Strongly Agree 16 15.7
Total 102 100.0

4.6 Achievement Oriented Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

In this section, the information sought was on achievement oriented leadership behaviours
and organizational commitment. Descriptive analysis as well as inferential statistics was
used.

4.6.1 Performance Expectations

On whether managers inform subordinates of expected levels of performance, the

responses were as follows: 39.2% strongly agreed, 28.4% agreed, 19.6% remained neutral
and 8.8% and 3.9% disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively as shown in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19: Performance Expectations

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 4 3.9
Disagree 9 8.8
Neutral 20 19.6
Agree 29 28.4
Strongly Agree 40 39.2
Total 102 100.0

4.6.2 Challenging Goals

On whether managers set challenging goals for subordinates, the responses were as
follows: 28.4% agreed, 25.5% remained neutral, 22.5% strongly agreed and 14.7% and
8.8% disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively as shown in Table 4.20.

55
Table 4.20: Challenging Goals

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 9 8.8
Disagree 15 14.7
Neutral 26 25.5
Agree 29 28.4
Strongly Agree 23 22.5
Total 102 100.0

4.6.3Continuous Improvement

On whether managers encourage continual improvement in subordinates’ performance,

the responses were as follows: 32.4% agreed, 27.5% strongly agreed, 16.7% remained
neutral and another16.7% disagreed, 6.9% strongly disagreed respectively as shown in
Table 4.21.

Table 4.21: Subordinates Continuous Improvement

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 7 6.9
Disagree 17 16.7
Neutral 17 16.7
Agree 33 32.4
Strongly Agree 28 27.5
Total 102 100.0

4.6.4 Belief in Subordinates

On whether managers have no doubts about subordinates’ ability to meet most objectives,
the responses were as follows:29.4% remained neutral, 24.5% agreed, 18.6% disagreed,
14.7% strongly disagreed and 12.7% strongly agreed as shown in Table 4.22.

Table 4.22: Belief in Subordinates

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 15 14.7
Disagree 19 18.6
Neutral 30 29.4
Agree 25 24.5
Strongly Agree 13 12.7
Total 102 100.0

56
4.6.5 Consistency in Goal Setting

On whether managers consistently set challenging goals for subordinates to attain, the
responses were as follows: 30.4% agreed, 23.5% remained neutral, 20.6% strongly agreed
and 17.6% disagreed, 7.8% strongly disagreed respectively as shown in Table 4.23.

Table 4.23: Consistency in Goal Setting

Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 8 7.8
Disagree 18 17.6
Neutral 24 23.5
Agree 31 30.4
Strongly Agree 21 20.6
Total 102 100.0

4.6.6 Regression

4.6.6.1 Model Summary

The study established an R value of 0.539, R2 of 0.291 and adjusted R2 of 0.221. Based
on the value of R2(0.291), the study shows that 29.1%of the total variance in
organizational commitment has been explained by the various leadership behaviors
(Directive leadership behavior, Supportive leadership behavior, Participative leadership
behavior and Achievement-Oriented leadership behavior) as shown in Table 4.24.

Table 4.24: Model Summary

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .539a .291 .221 1.087
a. Predictors: (Constant), Directive leadership behavior, Supportive leadership
behavior, Participative leadership behavior, Achievement-Oriented leadership behavior

4.6.7 Anova

From the Table 4.25, it is established that over all, the model significantly predict the
outcome variable (organizational commitment) F (4.193)=4.193, p<0.001).

57
Table 4.25: Anova

ANOVAa
Mean
Model Sum of Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 44.587 9 4.954 4.193 .000b
Residual 108.707 92 1.182
Total 153.294 101
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment

4.6.8 Coefficient of Variation

The findings on each predictor variables is provided in Table 4.26. This help determine
how directive leadership behavior, supportive leadership behavior, participative
leadership behavior and achievement-oriented leadership behavior can enhance
organizational commitment at EABL.From the table, it is established that only directive
leadership behavior had a significant effect on organizational commitment (B = 0.346,
t=2.462 p< 0.001).

Table 4.26: Coefficient of the Relationship of Path-Goal Leadership Behaviors and

Organizational Commitment
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.124 0.539 2.083 0.04
Directive Leadership
0.346 0.14 0.347 2.462 0.000
Behavior
Supportive Leadership
0.073 0.104 0.083 0.705 0.482
1 Behavior
Participative Leadership
0.179 0.123 0.195 1.452 0.15
Behavior
Achievement-Oriented
0.181 0.146 0.175 1.236 0.219
Leadership Behavior
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment

4.7 Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the results and findings on the study on effect of employee perception of
path-goal leadership behaviors on organizational commitment was presented. The results
and findings were presented as per the research questions. Tables and figures were used
in the presentation of the results and findings. In the next chapter, the summary of the
findings, discussions, conclusions and recommendations will be covered.

58
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter lays the framework for the discussion, conclusions and recommendations for
the study. This will be presented in sections as follows: section 5.2 covers the summary of
the research, section 5.3 discussion, section 5.4 conclusions, and finally section 5.5
recommendations.

5.2 Summary of the Findings

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of Path-Goal leadership
behaviors on organizational commitment at East African Breweries (EABL). The study
was guided by the following research questions: To what extent do employees’
perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s directive leadership behavior affect their
organizational commitment? To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their
immediate supervisor’s supportive leadership behavior affect their organizational
commitment? To what extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s
participative leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment? Finally, to what
extent do employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s achievement-oriented
leadership behavior affect their organizational commitment?

This study adopted a descriptive research design, that is, this research design involved the
observation and description of the behavior of a subject without influencing the outcome
of the respondent in any way. The study’s target population was the 352 employees of
EABL. The study used a simple random sampling technique and a sample size of 176
respondents was randomly selected. This technique was the most appropriate because it
allowed the researcher to ensure that each case in the population had an equal chance of
being incorporated in the sample. Both closed and open ended questions was used in the
questionnaires to collect data. Effective and efficient data analysis process was ensured
through the coding and sorting of the questionnaires and analysis was done using
descriptive and inferential analysis in the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS).
For easy interpretations and understanding figures and tables was used for the
presentation of the results and findings.

59
Findings on the directive leadership behaviors and organizational commitment
established that the majority of respondents agreed that directive leadership behavior
leads to high organizational commitment in an organization. Many respondents were in
agreement that their managers guided them to follow standard rules and regulations. The
study established that there existed a statistical significant influence between directive
leadership behavior and organizational commitment.

On supportive leadership behavior and organizational commitment, many respondents

were in agreement that managers maintained a friendly working environment. They also
agreed that managers considered subordinates personal feelings and helped them to
overcome task related problems. Majority of respondents agreed that supportive
leadership behavior influences organizational commitment.

The findings on the effect of participative leadership behaviors on organizational

commitment also established that the majority of responses were positive that mangers
listened to them. However a big number was neutral suggesting that not all respondents
agreed they were listened to by their managers. Although a majority of respondents
agreed that managers consulted with subordinates who were experiencing problems a big
number was also neutral which could be suggestive that some employees were not helped
by their managers when they had work related problems.

On achievement related behaviors and organizational commitment, many respondents

were neutral about having challenging goals. All the same, many agreed that managers
encouraged continuous improvement. A big number of respondents were neutral about
the managers’ belief in subordinates. Findings also showed that there was consistency in
goal setting

5.3 Discussion

5.3.1 Directive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

From this study’s findings on directive leadership behavior and organizational

commitment, it was established that the majority of respondents felt that directive
leadership leads to high organizational commitment. On whether managers let
subordinates know what is expected of them, majority of responses were positive with
33.3% and 30.4% agreeing and strongly agreeing respectively. This study is in line with
the finding that affective commitment is positively correlated with lack of role ambiguity
60
and role conflict (Gutierrez et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2012; Rabl & Triana, 2013).This
study further agrees with Bartol and Martin, (1998), who noted that directive leaders
allow subordinates to know what is expected of them, guidance on work methods,
development of work schedules, identification of work evaluation standards, and stating
the basis for outcomes or rewards. This in turn creates organizational commitment.

On whether managers inform subordinates about what needs to be done and how it should
be done, majority of responses were positive with 33.3% and 28.4% agreeing and
strongly agreeing respectively. The findings of this study are in agreement with House
and Dessler (1974) who described the directive leader as one who provides psychological
structure by informing subordinates what is expected of them and giving specific
guidance, clarifying roles, rules, and procedures. Mahdi and Almsafir (2014) argued that
the behavior of directive leadership entails telling the expectations to those under the
command, planning, programming, autocratic controlling goal performance, and bringing
out standards in behavior. The leader creates commitment through clarification of
followers’ roles and followers in turn fully understand what they are expected to do.

The findings on whether managers ask subordinates to follow standard rules and
regulations established that 35.3% and 34.3% of the respondents strongly agreed and
agreed respectively. This accounted for about 70% positive responses. The findings are in
agreement with Northouse (2016) who noted that directive leadership provides guidance
and psychological structure and drives commitment through giving direction to
subordinates on their tasks. House (1996) asserts that directive leaders tell subordinates
exactly what they are supposed to do and questions like “what to do, how to do, where to
do, when to do, and who should do” are clearly specified.

On whether managers give clear explanations of what is expected of subordinates on the

job, majority of respondents agreed. This study concurs with Yukl (2006) who observed
that directive leaders clarify performance expectations and explicitly outline the required
standard operating procedures, rules, and regulations. Subordinates who work in
uncertain situations and have a tendency to be dogmatic and authoritarian will ordinarily
prefer directive leadership because this type of leadership gives psychological structure
and task clarity. Commitment to the organization is as a result of subordinates knowing
the results expected, how the task will be accomplished, and the schedule for task
completion.

61
The coefficient of variation established that directive leadership behavior had a
significant effect on organizational commitment (B = 0.346, p< 0.001). The findings of
this study however, disagree with Çokluk and Yılmaz, (2010) who argued that
organizational commitment levels decrease as directive leadership behavior increases or
vice-versa. Research has established that there is negative and significant relationship
between directive leadership behavior and organizational commitment.

5.3.2 Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

From this study’s findings on supportive leadership behavior and organizational

commitment, the following results were established: on whether managers maintain a
friendly working relationship with subordinates, majority of responses were positive with
31.4% and 28.4% agreeing and strongly agreeing respectively. The study agrees with
Bartol and Martin (1998) who acknowledged that supportive leadership involves show of
concern for status, well-being, and needs of subordinates. It also entails making the work
place pleasant and being friendly and approachable. Subordinate’s commitment to
superior is described as admiration and pride of one’s superior. Supervisory support is
positively correlated with organizational commitment and support from one’s supervisor
is positively correlated with affective commitment. Gutierrez et al. (2012) also observed
that when employees are treated with consideration, they display greater levels of
commitment.

On whether managers do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group,

majority of responses were positive with 27.5% strongly agreeing and another 27.5%
agreeing. These findings are in agreement with Rollinson and Broadfield (2002) who
revealed that supportive leadership includes leadership behavior such as talking to people,
supporting their efforts, giving them hope, solving their problems, and encouraging them
in decision-making process. It entails taking into consideration emotions and personal
expectations.

On whether managers help subordinates overcome problems that stop them from carrying
out their tasks, majority of responses were positive as well with 32.4% of respondents
agreeing and 21.6% strongly agreeing. This study agrees with House and Mitchell (1974)
who acknowledged that supportive leader behaves in a responsive manner thus creating a
friendly climate and verbally recognizes subordinates’ achievement in a rewarding

62
modus. According to House and Mitchell (1974), this in turn creates organizational
commitment among followers. Supportive leaders demonstrate respect for subordinates,
treat everyone equal, and concern for subordinates’ well-being. According to Yukl
(2006), these leaders are approachable and maintain an open-door policy, friendly, and
empathetic to their subordinates’ needs and well-being. Supportive leadership provides
nurturance and creates organizational commitment.

On whether managers behave in a manner that is thoughtful of subordinates’ personal

needs, over 50% of the responses were positive. The study findings also concur with
Dubrin (2007), who noted that supportive leaders expend extra effort to ensure the
workplace has an enjoyable environment, and they create an atmosphere of honor,
respect, and equality for their subordinates in the workplace. This behavior is most
appropriate for improving commitment, and morale when tasks are boring, frustrating,
repetitive, stressful, and dissatisfying. Subordinates with a higher need for affiliation
should prefer supportive leadership because friendly, concerned leadership will give these
subordinates greater satisfaction.

The coefficient of variation established that supportive leadership behavior had no

significant effect on organizational commitment. These findings are in contrast to Adair
(2004), who established a positive relationship between supportive leadership and
employee commitment. Focus is on the individual team member creating a high
organization commitment. That way, each individual is a member of a group with a
shared goal and shared standards of performance, however, he or she remains individual
with personal needs including financial recognition, safety, status, respect, praise,
intimacy and fulfilment.

5.3.3 Participative Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

The study’s findings on effect of participative leadership behavior and organizational

commitment established the following: on whether managers consult with subordinates
when facing a problem, majority of responses were positive with over 50% in agreement.
The study’s findings agree with House and Dessler (1974) who described the participative
leader as one who encourages subordinates and considers their opinions and suggestions.
Employee participation entails providing an opportunity to participate in management
decisions resulting in high organization commitment.

63
On whether managers listen respectively to their subordinates’ ideas and suggestions,
majority of responses were positive as well. Over 50% of respondents agreed that their
managers listen respectively to their views. The study agrees with Strauss (2006), who
observed that participation is a process that allows employees to exercise some control
over their work, the conditions under which they work, and in driving organizational
commitment.

On whether managers do not act without consulting their subordinates, majority of

responses were negative as 35.3% remained neutral or undecided. This study differs with
various study that established otherwise. Northouse (2016) observed that participative
leadership provides involvement in instances where groups are autonomous, requiring
control and clarity, and tasks that are ambiguous, unclear and unstructured. Higher
employee participation has been found to lead to higher employee performance and
organizational commitment in general. House and Dessler (1974) described the
participative leader as one who encourages subordinates and considers their opinions and
suggestions. Strauss (2006) also observed that participation is a process that allows
employees to exercise some control over their work and the conditions under which they
work.

The research results indicate that participative leadership and instrumental leadership
affect normative commitment. However, the coefficient of variation established that
participative leadership behavior had no significant effect on organizational commitment.
These findings differ with the study done earlier on by Amna and Asma (2012) who
established that job involvement is positively related to affective commitment,
continuance commitment and normative commitment. These findings also differ with
Pandey and Khare (2012) that participative leadership and instrumental leadership affect
normative commitment. The study also does not agree with the view that employees who
feel that their opinions are taken into consideration and that they are involved in decision-
making process are believed to have affective commitment to their organization (Pandey
& Khare, 2012).

5.3.4 Achievement Oriented Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

The study’s findings on the effect of achievement oriented leadership behavior and
organizational commitment established the following: on whether managers let

64
subordinates know that he/she expects them to perform at their highest level, majority of
responses were positive with 39.2% of respondents strongly agreeing and 28.4%
agreeing. These findings agree with Daft (2010) who noted that leaders with drive seek
achievement, possess high energy and tenacity, and have a hunger to achieve goals. Their
ambition enables them to set challenging goals while their initiative enables them to
achieve those goals and as a result driving organizational commitment.

On whether managers set challenging goals for subordinates, over 50% of responses were
positive. This confirms the findings byBartol and Martin (1998) who described
achievement-oriented leadership as involving setting of challenging goals, and high
degree of confidence in subordinates. Also in agreement is House and Dessler, (1974)
who described the achievement-oriented leader as one who encourages performance
excellence, sets challenging goals, emphasizes excellence in performance, and shows
confidence that subordinates will attain high standards of performance. Achievement-
oriented leaders express a great deal of confidence in the abilities of employees to set,
achieve very demanding goals and drive high organizational commitment.

On whether managers encourage continual improvement in subordinates’ performance,

over 60% of responses were positive. These findings concur with Dubrin (2007), who
noted that achievement oriented leadership is most appropriate for improving
commitment and morale when subordinates have a high need to achieve and are working
on tasks that are characterized by variety and ambiguity.

On whether managers consistently set challenging goals for subordinates, majority of the
responses were positive. These findings confirmthe study by Lunenburg (2011) who
argued that when goals are specific and challenging, and if they are used to evaluate
performance and strongly linked to feedback on results, they create commitment and
acceptance. The motivational impact of goals may be affected by moderators such as
ability and self-efficacy. Learning goals create more organizational commitment than
performance goals (Luthans, 2011). Learning goal orientation enables employees to be
proactive, problem solve, be creative and open to new ideas, and adapt to new and
changing situations.

The coefficient of variation established that achievement-oriented leadership behavior

had no significant effect on organizational commitment. These findings differed from a

65
study done by Northouse (2016) who concludes that if the path is ambiguous, the task is
challenging and complex, and subordinates have high expectations for what they can
achieve and a higher need to excel, the leaders should be achievement-oriented to ensure
that they challenge subordinates. Leaders are effective in creating commitment when they
assist subordinates in the achievement of their goals by guiding, directing, and coaching
them along the right path.

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 Directive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

From the research it is clear that there exists a significant positive influence between
directive leadership behaviors and organizational commitment. Directive leadership
behaviors had a significant effect on organizational commitment.The study therefore
concludes that directive leadership behaviors are crucial to the organizational
commitment of EABL and that managers who let subordinates know what is expected of
them, inform subordinates about what needs to be done and how it should be done, and
ask subordinates to follow standard rules and regulations are likely to drive a high
organization commitment among their subordinates.

5.4.2 Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

The results showed that there was no statistical significance between supportive
leadership behaviors and organizational commitment. Surpportive leadership behaviors
had no significant effect on organizational commitment.Based on the research findings,
the study concludes that the practice of supportive leadership behaviors in an organization
do not guarantee organizational commitment amongst employees.

5.4.3 Participative Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

The results showed that there was no statistical significance between participative
leadership behaviors and organizational commitment. Participative leadership behaviors
had no significant effect on organizational commitment. Based on the research findings,
the study concludes the practice of participative leadership behaviors in an organization
do not guarantee organizational commitment amongst employees.

66
5.3.4 Achievement Oriented Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

The results showed that there was no statistical significance between achievement-
oriented leadership behaviors and organizational commitment. Achievement-oriented
leadership behaviors had no significant effect on organizational commitment. Based on
the research findings, the study concludes the practice of achievement-oriented leadership
behavior in an organization do not guarantee organizational commitment amongst
employees.

5.5 Recommendations

5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement

5.5.1.1 Directive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

The findings showed that directive leadership behaviors have a significant positive effect
on organizational commitment. The study recommends the application of directive
leadership behaviors in an organization in the attainment of high organizational
commitment. This should be obtained by leaders letting subordinates know what is
expected of them, informing subordinates about what needs to be done and how it should
be done and asking subordinates to follow standard rules and regulations.

5.5.1.2 Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

The findings showed that supportive leadership behaviors have no significant effect on
organizational commitment. The study therefore recommends against the use of the
leadership behaviors in trying to attain a high organizational commitment. Previous
studies have revealed that supportive leadership behaviors have significant effect on
various aspects like employee motivation and team work but not on organizational
commitment.

5.5.1.3 Participative Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Commitment

Based on the findings that participative leadership behaviors have no significant effect on
organizational commitment, the study recommends that managers should avoid the use of
the leadership behavior in trying to attain high organizational commitment. Though the

67
leadership behaviors have been recommended in previous studies on motivating and
mentoring leaders, the study found no significant effect on organizational commitment.

5.5.1.4 Achievement – Oriented Leadership behavior and Employee Performance

The study’s findings showed that better organizational commitment cannot be achieved
through the application of achievement-oriented leadership behaviors. Based on these
findings, the study recommends that managers should avoid the use of these leadership
behaviors in trying to attain a high organizational commitment.

5.5.2 Recommendation for Further Studies

This study investigated the effect of employee perception of path-goal leadership

behaviors on organizational commitment. EABL was used as a case study in this
research. The study therefore recommends that further research be carried out on the same
topic using a different case study. Secondly, the study recommends that further study be
carried out on effect of specific leadership behaviors on organizational performance.

68
 REFERENCES

Adair, J. (2004). Adair on Leadership. Darya Ganj, New Delhi: Crest Publishing House.

Aida, M & Bahareh, F. (2014). The Role of Leadership Behaviors on Staff ´s Job
Satisfaction in Public organizations. Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Vol.
24 No. 5, p. 27-32.

Ahmadi, S.A.A., Ahmadi, F. & Zohrabi, M. (2011). Effect of Leadership Behaviors on

the Organizational Commitment Given the Staff Personality Traits.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research Business, Vol 4, No. 1, p.
247 -264.

Akhtar, S. & Haleem, A. (1979). Differences Between Newly-Promoted Supervisors and

Workers with Regard to 'Consideration' and 'Initiating Structure. Journal of
Psychological Research, 24(2), p. 90-95.

Anawalt, M.A., (2011). The Relationship of Leadership Behaviors, Context, and

Outcomes. CMC Theses. Paper 215, pp 1-40.

Angle, H. & Perry, J. (1981). An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment

and Organizational Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, p. 1-14.

Ashraf, Z., Jaffri, A. M., Sharif, M.T & Khan, M. A. (2012). Increasing Employee
Organizational Commitment by Correlating Goal Setting, Employee Engagement
and Optimism at Workplace. European Journal of Business and Management Vol
4, No.2, p.71-78

Bartol, K. & Martin, D. (1998). Management. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: The
Free Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing Transformational Leadership: 1992 &
Beyond.Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14, No. 5, p. 22-27.

Bass, B. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood
City, CA: Mind Garden.

69
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden

Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Blake, R.S., & Mouton, J.S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III: The Key to Leadership
Excellence: Houston, TX. Gulf Publishing.

Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the Concept and

Simplifying the Existing Construct Typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
p. 230-251.

Brown, B. B. (2003). Employees’ Organizational Commitment and Their Perception of

Supervisors’ Relations-Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behaviors.
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of

Managers in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 19, p. 533-
546

Bushra, F., Usman, A. & Naveed, A. (2011). Effect of Transformational Leadership on

Employee’s Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Banking Sector
of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol 2.
No. 18

Butler, J., Jr., Cantrell, S., & Flick, R. (1999). Transformation Leadership Behaviors,
Upward Trust, and Satisfaction in Self-Managed Work Teams. Organization
Development, 17(1), p. 13- 25.

Careers in Africa Employer of Choice Awards

(2015).www.careersinafrica.com/blog/2015- careers-in-africa-employer-

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics-research and theory. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson.

Chester A. Schriesheim. (96). Path-goal leadership theory: The long and winding road.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), p. 317-321.

Çokluk, Ö. & Yılmaz, K. (2010). The Relationship between Leadership Behavior and
Organizational Commitment in Turkish Primary Schools. BiligNumber 54: p. 75-
92

Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 79 (1), p. 67-76.

70
Crispen, C., Michael, O.S. & Tendai, M. (2011). Leadership Behavior, Employee
Motivation and Commitment: Empirical Evidence from a Consolidated Retail
Bank Operating in a Depressed Economy. African Journal of Business
Management Vol. 5(20), p. 8337- 8346.

Daft, R. L. (2005). The Leadership Experience: Webcom Limited: Toronto, ON.

Daft, R.L. & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2009). Leadership Experience: First Asia–Pacific,

Australia: Thomson South-Western Cengage Learning.

Davila, M. C. & Garcia, G. J. (2012). Organizational Identification and Commitment:

Correlates of Sense of Belonging and Affective Commitment. The Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 15, 244-255.

Dello Russo, S., Vecchione, M. & Borgogni, L. (2013). Commitment Profiles, Job
Satisfaction, and Behavioral Outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 62, p. 701- 719.

Derue. D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. & Humphrey, S.E. (2011). Trait and
Behavioral Theories of Leadership: An Integration and Meta-Analytic Test of
Their Relative Validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, p. 7–52

Dix, G. & Oxenbridge, S. (2003) Information and Consultation at Work: From

Challenges to Good Practice. Acas Research and Evaluation Section

Dixon, M.L. & Hart, L.K. (2010). The Impact of Path-Goal Leadership Behaviors on
Work Group Effectiveness and Turnover Intention. Journal of Managerial
Issues.

Downey, H., Sheridan, J., & Slocum, J. (1975). Analysis of Relationships Among Leader
Behavior, Subordinate Job Performance and Satisfaction: A Path Goal Approach.
Academy of Management, 18, p. 253-262.

East African Breweries LimitedAnnual Report (2015).

https://www.eabl.com/downloads/annual-report-2015.pdf

Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham. (1990). Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at
the End of the Tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), p. 240-246.

Fiedler. (1981). Leadership Effectiveness. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(5), 619-632.

Georgopoulos, Basil S., U. Michigan Mahoney, Gerald M. (1957). A path-goal approach

to Productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41(6), 345-343.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), p.
78- 93.

71
Gutierrez, A. P., Candel, L.L. & Carver, L. (2012). The Structural Relationship between
Organizational Commitment, Global Job Satisfaction, Development Experience,
Work Values, Organizational Support, and Person-Organizational Fit Among
Nursing Faculty. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, p. 1601-1614.

Huang, C.-C., You, C.-S. & Tsai, M.-T. (2012). A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Ethical
Climate, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Nursing
Ethics, 19, p. 513-529.

Hymowitz, C. (1988). Five Main Reasons Why Managers Fail. The Wall Street Journal.

Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P. & Wang, X.-H. (2013). Leadership, Commitment, and
Culture: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
20, p. 84-106.

Johnson, R. E., Roden, C. C. & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the Impact of Common
Method Variance on Higher Order Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, p. 744-761.

Farkas, C. M. & Wetlaufer, S. (1996). The Ways Chief Executive Officers Lead. Harvard
Business Review, May- June, p. 110-122.

Fernandez, S. (2005). Developing and Testing an Integrative Framework of Public Sector

Leadership: Evidence from the Public Education Arena. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 197-217

Fernandez. S., Cho, Y. J. & Perry, J. L. (2010). Exploring the Link between Integrated
Leadership and Public Sector Performance. The Leadership Quarterly 21, p. 308–
323.

Fleishman, E. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 37, p. 1-6.

Fleishman, E. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. Stogdill & A.

Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and Measurement. Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Fleishman, E., & Harris, E. (1962). Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee
Grievances and Turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.Forsyth, D. R. (2016).
Group Dynamics. Salem, OR: Wadsworth Publishing

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & Mckee, A. (2004). Primal Leadership: Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

72
Gopali, R & Rima, G.C. (2014). Leadership Behaviors and Employee Motivation: An
Empirical Investigation in a Leading Oil Company in India. International Journal
of Research in Business Management Vol. 2, Issue 5, p. 1-10.

Griffin, R.J. & Ricky, E. W. (2010). Business Essentials (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hawkins, W. D. (1998). Predictors of Affective Organizational Commitment among High

School Principals. Submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education in Educational Administration.

Hemphill, J. (1949). The Leader and his Group. Journal of Educational Research, 28, p.
225- 229.

Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and
Mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership
theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), p. 1165–1185.

Holloway, J.B. (2012). Leadership Behavior and Organizational Climate: An Empirical

Study in a Non-profit Organization. Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 5 Iss.
1, p. 9- 35.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Lessons, Legacy, and a

Reformulated Theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7 (6), p. 323-352.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Journal of

Contemporary Business, 5, p. 81-94.

Indvik, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the

Academy of Management, Chicago, Ill.

Jackson, S. & Schuler, R. (1985), “A Meta-Analysis and Conceptual Critique of Research

on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict in Work-Settings”. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 36, p. 16-78.

Jermier, J. & Berkes, L. (1979). Leader Behavior in a Police Command Bureaucracy: A

Closer Look at the Quasi-Military Model. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
p. 1-23.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an
Office Situation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.

73
Kelly, J.P. & Hise, R.T. (1980), “Role conflict, Role Clarity, Job Tension and Job
Satisfaction in the Brand Manager Position”. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 120-37.

Khan, V., Hafeez, M. H., Rizvi, S. M. H., Amna, H. & Asma, M. (2012). Relationship of
Leadership Behaviors, Employees Commitment and Organization Performance (A
study on Customer Support Representatives). European Journal of Economics,
Finance and Administrative Sciences, Issue 49.

Klimoski, R. & Hayes, N. (1980). Leader behavior and subordinate motivation. Personnel
Psychology, 33, p. 541-555.

Kotter, J.P. (1999). What Leaders Really Do: Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

Kwon, I.G. & Banks, D.W. 2004. Factors Related to the Organizational and Professional
Commitment of Internal Auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 606-22.

Laabs, J. J. (1996). Embrace today's new deal. Personnel Journal, 75. p. 60-66.

Laura, C. B., Michael, B.S., Cinthya, C. G. & Sofia, B. (2009). The Role of Leadership
Behavior in Employee Engagement, FL, USA. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
College of Education & GSN Research Conference, p. 15-20.

Lewin, K. & Lippitt, R. (1938). An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy

and Democracy: A Preliminary Note. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, p. 271-
301.

Long, R. & Shields, J. (2010). From Pay to Praise? Non-Cash Employee Recognition in
Canadian and Australian Firms. International Journal of Human Resource
Management 21 (8), p. 1145–1172.

Loui, K. (1995). Understanding Employee Commitment in the Public Organization: A

Study of the Juvenile Detention Center. International Journal of Public
Administration. 18(8), p. 1269-1295.

Lunenburg, F.C. (2011). Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation. International Journal of

Management, Business, and Administration, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 1-6.

Lucas, P. R. Messner, P. E. Ryan, C. W. and Sturm, G. P. (1992). Preferred Leadership

Behavior Differences: Perceptions of Defence Industry Labour and Management.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13(7), p. 19.

Lussier, A. & Achua, C.F. (2013). Effective Leadership: South-Western, Cengage

74
Lyons, T. (1971). Role Clarity, Need for Clarity, Satisfaction, Tension, and Withdrawal.
Organizational Behavior and I-Iuman Performance 6, p. 99--110

Mahdi, O.R., Mohd, E.S.G. & Almsafir, M.K. (2014). Empirical Study on the Impact of
Leadership Behavior On Organizational Commitment in Plantation Companies in
Malaysia.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 109, p. 1076 – 1087.

McCall, M.W. & Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the Track: Why and How Successful
Executives Get Derailed. Center for Creative Leadership. Greensboro, NC.
Technical Report No. 2.

Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1991). A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational

Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to Organizations and
Occupations: Extension of a test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78. p. 538-551.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.

Meyer, J. P., Kam, C., Gildenberg, I. & Bremner, N. L. (2013). Organizational

Commitment in the Military: Application of a Profile Approach. Military
Psychology, 25, 381-401.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Jackson, T. A., MCInnis, K.J., Maltin, E. R. & Sheppard, L.
(2012). Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment Levels Across
Cultures: A Meta- Analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, p. 225-245.

Miller, O. J. (1996). Employee Turnover in the Public Sector. New York: Garland.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work: New York, NY: Harper & Row
Publishers.

Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1993). Introduction: Understanding and Managing

Loyalty in a Multi-commitment World. Journal of Business Research, 26, p. 1-2.

Mottaz, C. J. (1988). Determinants of Organizational Commitment. Human Relations, 41,

p. 467- 482.

Mowoday, R.T., Steer, R. M. & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of Organizational
Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior: 41, p. 224-247.

75
Mukherjee, A & Malhotra, N. (2006). Does Role Clarity Explain Employee-Perceived
Service Quality? International Journal of Service Industry Management
Vol. 17 No. 5, p. 444- 473

Napolitano, C. S. & Henderson, L. (1998). The Leadership Odyssey: San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nelson, C. (1949). The Development and Evaluation of a Leadership Attitude Scale for
Foremen. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Nelson, C. (1950). Differential Concepts of Leadership and their Function in an

Industrial Organization. Paper Presented at the Paper, American
Psychological Association, State College, PA.

Negron, D. (2008). A Case Study Examining the Relationship of the Path-Goal Theory
Leadership Behaviors to Profits in El Paso, Texas, Rent-A-Center stores.
(Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Database. (UMI No. 3331408). Capella University.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.

Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meetNjoroge, D. (2014). The
Effect of integrative Leadership Behavior on Organizational Commitment as
Moderated by Employee Participation in Technical Institutions in Kenya. Journal
of Management. Vol. 2 No. 4, p. 52-71.

Obiwuru, T.C. et.al (2011). Effects of Leadership Behavior on Organizational

Performance: A Survey of Selected Small Scale Enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu Council
Development Area of Lagos, NG. Australian Journal of Business and
Management Research Vol.1 No.7, p. 100-111.

Panaccio, A. & Vandernberghe, C. (2011). The relationships of Role Clarity and

Organization- Based Self-Esteem to Commitment to Supervisors and
Organizations and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
41, 6, p.1455-1485

Pandey, C. & Khare, R. (2012). Impact of Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment on Employee Loyalty. International Journal of Social Science &
Interdisciplinary Research Vol.1 Issue 8.

Pascal, P., Pierre-Sebastien, F. & Lamontage, S. (2011). Relationships Between

Commitments to the Organization, the Superior and the Colleagues, and the
Intention to Leave Among Truckers. International Journal of Organization
Analysis, 19(2), p. 92-108

76
Patchen, M. (1962). Supervisory methods and group performance norms. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 7, p. 275-294.

Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R. & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational Commitment,
Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 5, p. 603-609.

Rabl, T. & del Carmen T. M. (2013). How German Employees of Different Ages
Conserve Resources: Perceived Age Discrimination and Affective Organizational
Commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, p.
3599-3612.

Polston-Murdoch, L. (2013). An Investigation of Path-Goal Theory, Relationship of

Leadership Behavior, Supervisor-Related Commitment, and Gender. Emerging
Leadership Journeys, Vol. 6 Iss. 1, p. 13- 44.

Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial Effectiveness: MCGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Riggio, R.E. & Orr, S. S. (2007). Improving Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations: San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Roddick, A. (2000). Leader as Social Advocate: Buidling Business by Building

Community. Leader to Leader, 17, Summer, p. 87 - 113.

Rollinson, D., & Broadfield, A. (2002). Organisational Behavior and Analysis: An

Integrated Approach (2nd ed.). UK: Financial Times Prent.Int.

Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. & Feinberg, R. (2001). Role Stress in Call Centres: Its Effects on
Employee Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol.
15 No. 2, p. 23-35.

Sadler, P. (2003). Leadership: London, UK: Kogan Page Limited.

Schein, E. H. (1999). Process Consultation Revisited: Building the Helping Relationship.

Reading: Addison-Wesley/Longman. 12

Scouller, J., & Chapman A., (2014).Three levels of leadership model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.

Scouller, J. (2014). The Three Levels of Leadership: Oxford, UK: Management Books
2000 Ltd.

Seltzer, J. & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond Initiation and

Consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693-703.

77
Shanta, H. (2012). The Leader Coach: A Model of Multi- Behavior Leadership. Journal
of Practical Consulting, Vol. 4, p. 22-3.

Sharifah, R. & Hjh, N. (2012). A Study on the Relationship between Leadership

Behaviors and Leadership Effectiveness in Malaysian GLCs. European Journal of
Business and Management Vol 4, No.8, p. 193 – 202.

Silverthorne, C. (2004). The Impact of Organizational Culture and Person-Organization

Fit on Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 25(7), p. 592-599.

Sinem, A. & Baris, A. (2011). The Effect of Transformational Leadership Behavior on

Organizational Culture: An Application in Pharmaceutical Industry. International
Review of Management and Marketing. Vol. 1, No.4, 2011, p.65-73.

Soureh, A & Leyla, F (2014). The Impact of Leadership Behavior on Job Satisfaction: A
Study of Iranian Hotels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business Vol 6, No 3, p.171-186.

Subramaniam, N., McManus, L., ve Mia, L. (2002), Enhancing Hotel

Managers’Organizational Commitment: An Investigation of the Impact of
Structure, Need for Achievement and Participative Budgeting. Hospitality
Management, 21, p 303-320.

Suna, S. & Lesha, J. (2013). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: The Case
of Shkodra Municipality. European Scientific Journal Vol.9, No.17, p.
41Stogdill, R. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire--Form XII. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research.

Teas, R.K. (1980). Churchill, and Ford Model of Sales Force Motivation and
Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, p.
58-72.

Thomas, M. (2007). Gurus on Leadership: London, UK: Thorogood Publishers.

Tichy, N. M. (2002). The Cycle of Leadership: New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Umer, P., Adnan, Q., Anam, M. & Inam-ul-Hassan, W.M. (2012). Impact of Leadership
Behavior (Transformational & Transactional Leadership) on Employee
Performance & Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Study of Private School
(Educator) In Pakistan, p. 54-64.

78
Vardi, Y, Wiener, Y., & Popper, M. (1989). The value content of organizational Mission
as a Factor in the Commitment of Members. Psychological Reports, 65, p. 27-
34.

Vecina, M. L., Chacon, F., Marzana, D. & Marta, E. (2013). Volunteer Engagement and
Organizational Commitment in Nonprofit Organization: What Makes Volunteers
Remain Within Organizations and Feel Happy? Journal of Community
Psychology, p. 41, p. 291-302.

Voon1, M.L., Lo2, M.C., Ngui1, K.S., & Ayob2, N.B. (2011). The Influence of
Leadership Behaviors on Employees’ Job Satisfaction in Public Sector
Organizations in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Management and
Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 24-32.

Wayne, J. H., Casper, W. J., Matthews, R. A., Allen, T. D. (2013). Family-Supportive

Organization Perception and Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of
Work-Family Conflict an Enrichment and Partner Attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98, p. 606-622.

Webb, A., Jeffrey, S. & Schulz, A. (2010). Factors Affecting Goal Difficulty and
Performance When Employees Select Their Own Performance Goals: Evidence
From the Field. Journal of Management Accounting Research 22 (1): 209–232.

White, R. K., & Lippitt, R. O. (1976). Autocracy and Democracy: An experimental

Inquiry. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A Normative View. Academy of

Management Review, 7,418- 28.

Wolowska, A. (2014). Determinants of Organizational Commitment. Human Resources

Management & Ergonomics Volume VIII, p. 129-146.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.

Yukul, G. A. & Lepsinger, L. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating Value by Balancing

Multiple Challenges and Choices: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Wiley
Imprint.

Yukul, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations, Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

79
 APPENDICES

Appendix I: Cover Letter

Masheti Hasan
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY-AFRICA (USIU-A)
P.O. BOX 14634, 00800.
NAIROBI
Dear Respondent,
I am a USIU student carrying out research on the; INFLUENCE OF EMPLOYEE
PERCEPTION OF A LEADER’S PATH-GOAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ON
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A CASE STUDY OF EAST AFRICAN
BREWERIES LIMITED (EABL) in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree
of Executive Masters in Organizational Development (EMOD) program at the United
States International University.

This study adopted questionnaires as the tool for data collection which you are requested
to complete and return. The findings of this study will provide valuable information to
EABL on the influence of employee perception of Path-Goal leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment. Other organizations will also benefit from the results and
findings of this study.

This study uses EABL as the case study from which you have been selected as one of the
respondent. The data obtained in this study will be analyzed and results and findings of
the study will be made available on request.

This is an academic research and confidentiality is highly emphasized. To achieve this,

your name will not appear anywhere in the questionnaire and data collected will be
collectively analyzed. Kindly spare some time to complete the questionnaire. The
questionnaire will take you approximately ten minutes to complete.

Thank you in advance,

Kasimu, P.

80
Appendix II: Questionnaire

Dear Participant,

Thank you for your time to read this letter. I humbly seek your participation in a survey I
am conducting. I am a Post Graduate student at The Chandaria School of Business,
United States International University – Africa, where I am pursuing studies in
organizational development.

I am passionate about growing leadership capability and as a result, I have settled for a
research work on the subject of leadership behaviors and how they relate to employee
commitment to an organization. Your participation would be a valuable contribution as I
seek to make recommendations to increase the quality of line managers and in turn help
them become amazing people leaders.

Your responses are considered highly confidential, and will be treated as such throughout
this process, and your anonymity assured. Please do not provide your name on any part of
the questionnaire.

I thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire and look forward to hearing
from you.

For more information please contact:

Paul Kasimu

Tel: +254 703 777 333

Email – paul.kasimu64@gmail.com; or paul.kasimu@eabl.com

81
Section I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please give your answers to each of the following questions. Read all the answers first
and choose the appropriate answer box by ticking (√) clearly or circling against one item
for each question.

Please answer the following questions by ticking against the appropriate response:

1. Please indicate your gender:

Male
Female

2. Please select your age range:

20- 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+

3. In which function do you work?

Sales & Marketing
Supply
Finance
Corporate Relations/Legal/Compliance
Human Resources & Administration
Other (please specify)

4. How long have you worked in this organization? Please tick against the right
response:

Up to 5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21 - 30 years
31 years or more

5. How long have you reported into your current line manager?
Less than 1 year
1-5 years
6- 10years
11 - 15 years
16 years or more

82
 6. Please rate the following statements based on how you currently feel at work:
Key: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 =
Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.

Item 1 2 3 4 5

a. I would be very happy to spend the rest of

my career with this organization
b. It would be very hard for me to leave my
organization right now, even if I wanted to
c.
This organization deserves my loyalty

Section II: YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR LINE MANAGER’S DIRECTIVE

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
The aim of this section is to explore your current perception of your immediate line
manager’s direct leadership behavior. Please tick the statement that best represents your
views. Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5)

Item 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
My Manager lets subordinates know what is expected of
1. them.
2. My Manager informs subordinates about what needs to be 1 2 3 4 5
done and how it needs to be done.
My Manager asks subordinates to follow standard rules and 1 2 3 4 5
3.
regulations.
My Manager explains the level of performance that is 1 2 3 4 5
4.
expected of subordinates.
My Manager does not give vague explanations of what is 1 2 3 4 5
5. expected of subordinates on the job.

83
Section III: YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR LINE MANAGER’S SUPPORTIVE
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
The aim of this section is to explore your current perception of your immediate line
manager’s supportive leadership behavior. Please tick the statement that best represents
your views. Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly
Agree (5)
Item 1 2 3 4 5

6. My Manager maintains a friendly working relationship 1 2 3 4 5

with subordinates.
My Manager does little things to make it pleasant to be a 1 2 3 4 5
7. member of the group.

My Manager does not say things that hurt subordinates’ 1 2 3 4 5

8.
personal feelings.
My Manager helps subordinates overcome problems that 1 2 3 4 5
9.
stop them from carrying out their tasks.
My Manager behaves in a manner that is thoughtful of 1 2 3 4 5
10.
subordinates’ personal needs

Section IV: YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR LINE MANAGER’S

PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
The aim of this section is to explore your current perception of your immediate line
manager’s participative leadership behavior. Please tick the statement that best represents
your views. Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly
Agree (5)
Item 1 2 3 4 5

11. My Manager consults with subordinates when facing a 1 2 3 5

problem.
My Manager listens receptively to subordinates’ ideas and 1 2 3 5
12. suggestions.

My Manager does not act without consulting his/her 1 2 3 5

13.
subordinates.
My Manager asks for suggestions from subordinates 1 2 3 5
14.
concerning how to carry out assignments.
My Manager asks subordinates for suggestions on what 1 2 3 4 5
15.
assignments should be made.

84
Section V: YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR LINE MANAGER’S
ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
The aim of this section is to explore your current perception of your immediate line
manager’s achievement-oriented leadership behavior. Please tick the statement that best
represents your views. Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4),
Strongly Agree (5)

Item 1 2 3 4 5

16. My Manager lets subordinates know that he/she expects 1 2 3 4 5

them to perform at their highest level.
17. 1 2 3 4 5
My Manager sets goals for subordinates’ performance that
are quite challenging.
18. My Manager encourages continual improvement in 1 2 3 4 5
subordinates’ performance.
My Manager does not show that he/she has doubts about 1 2 3 4 5
19.
subordinates’ ability to meet most objectives.
My Manager consistently sets challenging goals for 1 2 3 4 5
20.
subordinates to attain.
Section VI:

(a) Kindly state below one behavior of a line manager that would make you

recommend him/her to a colleague?

(b) Kindly state below one behavior of a line manager that would make you NOT

recommend him/her to a colleague?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

85