Leadership style and organizational commitment: mediating effect of role stress.

Commitment to an organization involves three attitudes: (1) a sense of identification with the organization's goals, (2) a feeling of involvement in organizational duties, and (3) a feeling of loyalty to the organization (Becker et al., 1996; Mowday et al., 1982; Mueller and LaMer, 1999; Porter et al., 1974). Lee and Mitchell (1991) characterized commitment as a shared belief and acceptance of the values and goals of the organization and the eagerness to go above and beyond the call of duty to enhance the organization's goals and values, as well as the desire to maintain membership with the organization.

The positive outcomes of organizational commitment (OC) have been well documented in management literature. People who are committed are less likely to quit and accept other jobs (Allen and Meyer, 1996; Hom et al., 1979; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Porter et al., 1976; Porter et al., 1974; Tett and Meyer, 1993) and are less likely to be tardy or absent from work (Angle and Perry, 1981; Bateman and Strasser, 1984; Horn et al., 1979; Koch and Steers, 1978; Larson and Fukami, 1984; Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977; Wasti, 2003). Thus, the costs associated with high turnover and absenteeism are avoided. Further, there is an improvement in customer satisfaction because long-tenure employees have better knowledge of work practices, and customers like the familiarity of doing business with the same employees. Organizational commitment has also been found to be positively associated with higher work motivation, greater organizational citizenship, as well as higher job performance (Meyer et al., 2002; Mowday et al., 1974; Reichheld, 2001; Riketta, 2002; Stephens et al., 2004), and may represent one useful indicator of the effectiveness of an organization (Chow and Holden, 1997; Schein, 1970; Steers, 1975).

[FIGURE I OMITTED]

Despite the notion that some employers are demonstrating less commitment to their employees, Scott-Ladd, Travaglione, and Marshall (2006) argue that the mere dominance of affective commitment suggests it continues to be an important attitudinal response. Committed employees have a purpose, are involved, and help solve the organization's problems. This benefits both the employer and the employee.

Given the contribution a highly trained and committed employee can make to organizational productivity, keeping such an employee should be a high priority for the organization. Among the many factors that have been shown to influence an employee's decision to remain with or leave an organization are the supervisor or manager's leadership style and the extent to which the employees experience role stress in their jobs (i.e., conflicts, and not knowing when, how or what to do). Thus, it may be in the organization's best interest for managers to understand how their behavior might influence a worker's commitment to the organization.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the direct effects that two influential leadership styles (i.e., initiating structure and consideration) have on OC. More importantly, because less attention has been given to possible mediators of the leadership style--OC relationship in the past, the present study will also examine whether or not role stress acts as a mediator. A review by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) stresses the need for empirical testing of just such a mediating model. See Figure I for a graphic representation of the model.

Initiating Structure/Consideration and Organizational Commitment

Work experiences can have a strong influence on the extent to which psychological attachments are formed with the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Examples of work experiences would include all of the things which over the years reinforce the steady growth of commitment. Morris and Sherman (1981) suggest that the quality of interpersonal exchange between the superior and a subordinate can make up an important element of the subordinate's work experience. The superior has the essential role of creating and facilitating conditions that the subordinate needs for performing organizational roles. A key factor in enhancing or detracting from the quality of the superior/subordinate relationship can be attributed to the leadership style of the manager. A vast amount of research has investigated a variety of different leadership styles and has found significant relationships with worker's motivation, attitudes, and job performance (e.g., see Bass, 1985; Fiedler, 1967; Hersey and Blanchard, 1977; Stodgill, 1963, 1974). Although Bass's (1985) transformational/transactional styles have been the target of much of the research over the last several years, one of the most influential approaches is still Stodgill's (1963, 1974) initiating structure and consideration styles identified in the famous Ohio State studies. These two leadership styles have been used to enhance the psychological state of employees and thus produce positive attitudes and behaviors, including OC (Likert and Likert, 1976; Teas and Horrell, 1981; Yukl, 1981; Zahra, 1984). In the next section, the relevant research pertaining to these two different styles of leadership will be discussed.

Initiating Structure. Leader initiating structure (IS) is the degree to which a supervisor defines his/her own role and the roles of subordinates toward attainment of the group's goals. Some examples include assigning tasks, specifying procedures, planning and scheduling work, communicating the importance of meeting deadlines, and maintaining definite standards of performance (Stodgill, 1963). Keller (2006) argues that initiating structure has been seriously neglected in the past 15 years. Similarly, Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) referred to initiating structure as the "forgotten one" of leadership research since 1987 and suggest there should be a renewed interest in this leadership style.

Interestingly, the results are somewhat mixed as to how a leader's initiating structure influences OC. The majority of studies indicate that initiating structure induces employees to perceive higher felt responsibility and thus have higher affective commitment (Johnston et al., 1990; Luthans et al., 1987; Morris and Sherman, 1981). When subordinates perceive that the superior exhibits a high level of initiating structure, they may perceive that the superior is formalizing the work environment or providing formal rules and procedures for employees to follow. When an organization provides its employees with operationally useful rules and procedures, it helps enhance employee perceptions of the organization's dependability, a characteristic that enhances commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Morris and Steers, 1980).

High levels of initiating structure may also indicate that the superior is providing ample work information to the subordinate. A deficiency of information may result in subordinates experiencing unpredictability or possibly role stress--stress resulting from conflicting information or not knowing what's expected of them (Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., 1970). Therefore, when an employee perceives high levels of initiating structure from the superior, expectations are clarified, efforts toward teamwork increase, and the employee identifies with the goals of the organization. As a result, OC levels are increased (Luthans et al., 1987). It is also possible that employees who want to perform at higher levels welcome guidance on how to do so and commitment to the organization is an outcome.

Although infrequent, contrary evidence was found by a few researchers who indicate that the expected positive link between initiating structure and OC is not always supported (Agarwal and Ramaswami, 1993; Keller, 1989; Schriesheim and Schriesheim, 1980). Salancik (1977) suggested that organizational relationships that reduce one's feelings of responsibility will also result in less commitment. For example, a leader who is perceived to exhibit high levels of initiating structure would be providing a great deal of direction to employees. This, in turn, would reduce the employee's felt responsibility by taking away the employee's autonomy. It is also possible that the negative relationship between initiating structure and commitment might be a matter of the selected sample or employee job type. To illustrate, Agarwal and Ramaswami (1993) studied the affective commitment of salespeople and did not find the expected positive linkage between initiating structure and commitment. In this case, because of the inherent independence in the job of salespeople, professional subjects may prefer to provide their own task structure rather than rely on supervisors. Job type also played a minor role in the Petty and Bruning (1980) study that examined subordinates' perceptions of male and female leader's behavior (i.e., consideration and initiating structure) and job satisfaction within six job classifications. Essentially, a considerate leadership style resulted in more job satisfaction across all job categories, while an initiating structure style had mixed results and was not as strong and consistent across job classifications.

While there have been varying results pertaining to the positive or negative impact that initiating structure has on OC, there appears to be stronger theoretical and empirical evidence for more positive effects. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: There will be a positive relationship between subordinate perceptions of leader initiating structure and OC.