The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment

Jean Lee
Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China
Abstract
Purpose The present study attempts to integrate both behavioural and relational perspectives of leadership and test their applicability in determining employees organizational commitment. Design/methodology/approach Leadership behaviours were measured using Bass and Avolios multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X. Liden and Maslyns multi-dimensional model of leader-member exchange (LMX-MDM) scale was used to measure the quality of relationship between respondents and their superiors. Meyer and Allens instrument for the multidimensional organisational commitment was adopted for this study. A total of 201 research and development (R&D) professionals including engineers and scientists working in R&D department of manufacturing rms, R&D organisations, and research institutes in Singapore participated in the study. Findings The ndings from hierarchical regression analysis reveal that transformational leadership has positive association with the dimensions of LMX and organizational commitment. LMX quality is also found to mediate the relationship between leadership and organizational commitment. R&D superiors demonstrate predominantly transformational leadership but at lower frequency than observed in past studies. Research limitations/implications Owing to the cross-sectional design of this study, the data collected does not allow for an assessment of the direction of causality. Practical implications R&D superiors and managers in Singapore are not demonstrating enough transformational leadership despite the unpredictable and uncertain nature of R&D work environments which calls for more effective leadership. This issue can be addressed by raising the awareness of the importance of effective leadership and implementing training and development programmes incorporating leadership for these R&D professionals. Originality/value This paper is a rst attempt to understand leadership and commitment among R&D professionals in Singapore. Keywords Leadership, Behaviour, Employee attitudes, Research and development, Singapore Paper type Research paper

Leadership and leader-member exchange 655

Received August 2004 Revised September 2004 Accepted October 2004

Introduction There has been an increasing acceptance of the proposition that leadership is a signicant factor in the success of research and development (R&D) work (Keller, 1992; Scott and Bruce, 1998; Tierney et al., 1999). At the same time, escalating trends of globalisation and fast developing technologies have fuelled ever more sophisticated customer preferences, and augmented the need to shorten product lifecycles. These changes in the marketplace are hence placing mounting pressure on the R&D work function (Kessler and Chakrabarti, 1996). The increased risk associated with rapidly changing technology has also made R&D tasks uncertain and equivocal (Bodensteiner et al., 1991).

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 26 No. 8, 2005 pp. 655-672 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730510633728

LODJ 26,8

656

With past studies examined the role of leadership in R&D settings based on western cultures, the present study examines the role of leadership in the growing R&D sector in Singapore. As Singapore gears up to transform itself into a knowledge-based economy, scientic research will be a key contributor to economic growth. The Singapore Government is moving forward to increase the quantum of R&D work as it not only helps the economy to move up the value-chain, but also boosts Singapores gross domestic product (GDP). In Singapore, gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) as a percentage of GDP registers a compound annual growth rate of 12 per cent for the period 1996-1999. This gure far exceeds the 6 per cent increase for the period 1991-1995. By 2000, GERD as a percentage of GDP in Singapore reaches 1.89 per cent, which is at the lower band of national R&D investments in developed countries. The number of research scientists and engineers per 10,000 in the labour force has also seen a steady growth at 10 per cent annually, from 48 in 1995 to 84 in 2000. Since implications from past literature suggest that leadership nurtures R&D talent and increases their commitment to the organisation, the relevance of leadership and LMX to organizational commitment is hence to be examined. The literature on the impact of leadership in R&D on organisational outcomes is limited to the innovation process, project performance, effectiveness and success (Keller, 1992; Scott and Bruce, 1998; Tierney et al., 1999; Waldman and Atwater, 1992; Waldman and Bass, 1991). Moreover, conspicuously missing from these R&D studies is the effect of leadership on employees organisational commitment despite commitment of employees being an important factor to ensure ROI on R&D. This research is thus an attempt to link the two leadership perspectives behavioural and relational, and examine them in the light of followers organisational commitment. Furthermore, given both of the leadership have plausible relationship with organisational commitment and interrelationship between each other, this research also attempts to nd the role of relational perspective of leadership as a mediating function between behavioural perspective of leadership and organisational commitment. Literature review Leadership and leader-member exchange Basss (1985) multi-factor leadership theory is probably the most widely cited and comprehensive theory that captures a broad range of leadership behaviours. Leadership is conceptualised within behavioural domains varying from non-leadership, otherwise known as laissez faire, to transactional leadership, which hinges on rewards and punishments, to transformational leadership, which is based upon attributed and behavioural charisma (Bass and Avolio, 1993). The leader-member exchange (LMX) involves the inter-personal relationships between leaders and followers. In general, these dyadic exchanges are thought to range on a continuum from high to low. High-quality exchanges are characterised by a higher level of trust, interaction, support and rewards than low-quality exchanges (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). Transformational leaders develop relationships with their followers that go beyond pure economic and social exchange (Bass, 1985). Studies have linked transformational leadership to high levels of effort (Seltzer and Bass, 1990), satisfaction with the leader

(Bass, 1985), trust in the leader (Bass, 1985; 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1990) and the followers reverence for their leader (Conger et al., 2000). These emotions aroused by the transformational acts of a leader contribute to the development of a high quality exchange between leader and followers. Deluga (1992) and Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) demonstrated that transformational leadership is signicantly related to high quality exchanges. A transformational leaders consideration for followers as individuals and the time spent coaching them to develop their capabilities creates meaningful exchanges between them. Such interactions not only reduce the physical distance (Howell and Hall-Merenda, 1999) but also the status barrier between leader and followers. Individualised consideration has the effect of creating a warmer and friendlier atmosphere in the workplace. In addition, it allows greater exibility in the relationship between leaders and followers (Liden et al., 1997). With such transformational behaviours, the followers affect and professional respect for their leader are likely to be enhanced. Often, the use of inspirational motivation also stimulates followers to perform beyond expectations (Den Hartog et al., 1997). With the followers self-perceptions of competence and self-efcacy being linked positively to their report of LMX (Snyder and Bruning, 1985), they are likely to reciprocate by playing supportive and contributing roles to meet the collective goals and visions of their leader. Besides, a leader who delegates meaningful work to followers also enhances the quality of exchange with them (Bauer and Green, 1996). Transformational leaders who lead the team by setting themselves as role models can deepen their followers feelings of loyalty and contribution. This is because the followers will perceive their leaders to be making personal sacrice or taking risks that are benecial to the work team (Bass and Avolio, 1993). The above ndings lead to the following hypotheses: H1.1. Transformational leadership has a positive association with affect. H1.2. Transformational leadership has a positive association with loyalty. H1.3. Transformational leadership has a positive association with contribution. H1.4. Transformational leadership has a positive association with professional respect. A highly salient characteristic that denes transactional leadership is the leaders focus on the lower order physical and security needs of their followers (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1993). The relationship that evolves between the leaders and followers is hence based on bargains or economic exchange. Findings in transactional leadership produce mixed results. Contingent reward leadership has been found in many studies to be highly correlated to transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 1999). While contingent reward leadership relates positively to subordinates outcomes like satisfaction and performance, the strength of the association is of a lower extent than transformational leadership (Lowe et al., 1996). Active management-by-exception is plausibly more effective than passive management-by-exception. This is because the leaders criticisms, if fair and constructive, can prevent aversive consequences and help to modify poor performance to a more acceptable outcome. However, Howell and Avolio (1993) argued that if the

Leadership and leader-member exchange 657

LODJ 26,8

658

predominant style of the leader is to take corrective action, such behaviour is expected to have a negative impact on followers performance over time. Transactional leaders, who full their promise of rewards like recognition, bonuses or merit increases to their followers when goals are met, are also likely to be harsh with them when targets are not realised. Hence, such transactional agreements are bound by many rules and limitations, which in turn give each party only a limited involvement in the activities of the other. Without going beyond contractual agreements, an exchange that is based on contingent reward and punishment is likely to have a negative impact on the emotional aspects of the relationship. Moreover, a lower quality exchange is also marked by a lower degree of trust and loyalty. Hence, the following hypotheses are posited: H2.1. Transactional leadership has a negative association with affect. H2.2. Transactional leadership has a negative association with loyalty. A passive-avoidant superior may either not intervene in the work affairs of his followers or may completely shirk his responsibilities as a superior. Superiors who exhibit low initiative and participation with their followers are unlikely to put in effort to build a relationship with them. Hence, passive-avoidant leadership is not likely to have signicant associations with affect and loyalty due to infrequent exchanges. Followers who observe their superiors unwillingness to invest time in the exchange are unlikely to express admiration (to third parties) for the dyadic partners professionalism (Liden et al., 1997). With passive management-by-exception and laissez faire leadership being associated with dissatisfaction, unproductiveness and ineffectiveness (Deluga, 1992), it is possible that followers do not hold as much respect for their superiors. Unproductiveness on their part may further reduce their willingness to contribute greater work efforts towards the dyad. In light of the above argument, it is proposed that: H3.1. Passive-avoidant leadership has a negative association with contribution. H3.2. Passive-avoidant leadership has a negative association with professional respect. Leadership and organizational commitment Recent studies have re-conceptualised organisational commitment as a multidimensional construct, with each dimension being plausibly related differentially to Basss leadership scales. As part of the research objectives, this study follows Bycio et al. (1995) suggestion to explore the relationships between Bass (1985) model of leadership and Meyer and Allens (1991) model of commitment. Koh et al. (1995) found that there was insignicant amount of variance explained by transactional leadership in organisational commitment. This nding led them to conclude transformational leadership as a better predictor of organisational commitment. Since transactional leadership focuses on the followers short-term and lower order needs (Bass, 1985) which do little to increase the followers identication with the organisation, this study posits that transactional leadership has insignicant impacts on organisational commitment. In contrast, transformational leadership has often been found to be positively associated with organisational commitment (Rowden, 2000).

Given the intense feelings of emotional attachment it is proposed to foster, transformational leadership is likely to exhibit strong positive relationships with affective commitment (Bycio et al., 1995). On the other hand, normative commitment is based on feelings of obligation to remain in the organisation. Such feelings are more likely to be inuenced by societal socialisation which precedes organisational socialisation (Meyer and Allen, 1991). As leaders play a role in socialising their followers, it is expected that they may inuence followers sense of duty to remain committed to a small extent. Bycio et al. (1995) and his colleagues reported a lower but positive normative commitment with transformational leadership. Hence, the following hypothesis is put forth: H4. Transformational leadership has a higher positive association with followers affective commitment than normative commitment.

Leadership and leader-member exchange 659

Leaders-member exchange and organizational commitment Many studies have proven that the strength of LMX relationships can predict organisationally signicant outcomes including performance related and attitudinal variables (Gerstner and Day, 1997). These include higher performance ratings (Liden et al., 1993), better objective performance and higher overall satisfaction (Graen et al., 1982), greater satisfaction with supervisor (Duchon et al., 1986) as well as stronger organisational commitment (Liden et al., 2000; Nystrom, 1990). Studies that have examined the link between LMX and organisational commitment produced mixed ndings. While previous works have found a relationship between LMX and commitment (Duchon et al., 1986; Liden et al., 2000), others fail to replicate similar results (Green et al., 1996). Findings that did not support the relationship would argue that LMX may be related to commitment through its strong inuence on satisfaction with leaders and other members. From the literature of LMX, it can be inferred that for exchanges that have evolved beyond pure transactional exchanges to social exchanges (i.e. friendship), followers may have a sense of commitment to the organisation because they have grown attached to their leaders and members in the organisation. Moreover, commitment by followers may be a way for them to demonstrate reciprocation or obligation to what their leaders have done for them. This implies that high quality exchange followers who received a large proportion of formal and informal benets would in return be dedicated and committed followers (Dansereau et al., 1975). Support and guidance given by leaders build up loyalty between leaders and followers, which is important in determining followers normative commitment to the organisation. Thus the following hypotheses are posited: H5.1. Affect is positively associated with followers affective commitment. H5.2. Loyalty is positively associated with followers normative commitment. As leadership styles and LMX have both been found to have impacts on organisational commitment, and leadership styles are found to be correlated with LMX, this study hence also aims to nd the role of LMX as a mediating function between leadership styles and affective and normative organisational commitment.

LODJ 26,8

660

Method Sample The population of this research included all engineers and scientists working in R&D department of manufacturing rms, R&D organisations, and research institutes. As there is no one single directory that lists all the organisations in Singapore involved in R&D work, a sample frame from the population was used to obtain data from R&D personnel. The sampling frame incorporated R&D employees working in the manufacturing/electronics industry, research centres in the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), the Singapore Science Park, and research institutes under the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A *STAR). Contact numbers of the participating organisations were obtained from the Yellow Pages and via the following web sites: . A *STAR homepage: www.astar.edu.sg/astar/index.jsp . NUS homepage: www.nus.edu.sg/corporate/research . NTU homepage: http://gemsweb.ntu.edu.sg/igems/public.htm . Singapore Science Park homepage: http://sciencepark.com.sg Using simple random sampling, the organisations were selected on a random basis from the sampling frame. Telephone calls and electronic mails (e-mails) were made to the selected organisations where the purpose of the study was conveyed to them, followed up by formal letters. Two pre-tests were carried out before administering the questionnaires to the respondents. The data collection process was carried out over a period of four months. A total of 22 organisations participated in the research. Fifteen of them are organisations from the manufacturing industry while the remaining seven are research organisations or institutes. Questionnaires were sent to all R&D professionals in the sampled organizations. Altogether, 400 questionnaires were sent out. Participants were given two weeks to complete the questionnaires. A total of 220 R&D employees responded to the study, giving a response rate of 55 per cent. Using an estimate of 10 per cent missing data, 19 forms were discarded, with 201 completed questionnaires used in the subsequent analyses. In general, the average R&D employee is in the 26-30 years category of age and is more likely male than female. Specically, male respondents account for 72.1 per cent of the total number of participants. All R&D employees have tertiary educational qualications of at least a diploma, with 75.1 per cent holding a university degree. The average time spent working under the present superior is 19.7 months for each employee. Measures Leadership. Leadership behaviours were measured using Bass and Avolios (1997) multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X. The MLQ comprises 36 questions measuring nine leadership styles, described in the multifactor leadership theory. The ve scales used to measure transformational leadership are idealised inuence (attributed and behavioural), intellectual stimulation, individualised consideration and inspirational motivation. As transformational leadership is a higher order construct comprising theoretically distinct but highly intercorrelated

scales (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1993), the ve subscales were aggregated to form the construct, transformational leadership. The two scales used for measuring transactional leadership are contingent reward and active management-by-exception (MBEA). Passive-avoidant leadership is measured by the laissez faire and passive management-by-exception (MBEP) items. Leader-follower relationship. Liden and Maslyns (1998) multi-dimensional model of leader-member exchange (LMX-MDM) scale, comprising 12 items, was used to measure the quality of relationship between respondents and their superiors. The LMX-MDM scale incorporates the dimensions of affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect, with each dimension consisting of three items. LMX quality is the summation of all the LMX dimensions. Organizational commitment. Meyer and Allens (1997) instrument for the multidimensional organisational commitment was adopted for this study. The instrument includes items that measure affective, continuance and normative commitment but the continuance commitment subscale was not included in this study as the study proposed to test the effects of leadership on subordinates commitment to the organisation based on the desire and obligation to stay. Findings It is found that the Cronbachs a of all the scales are ranged between 0.72 and 0.93, above the criterion given by Nunnally (1978), hence giving condence that the individual constructs are all consistent in their measurements. The reliability of the constructs used in this study is satisfactory. The means and standard deviations for each leadership style and the various study variables are shown in Table I. As reected by the descriptive statistics, the higher mean of transformational leadership implies that R&D superiors exhibit transformational leadership styles more frequently than transactional or passive-avoidant leadership styles. The means of transformational leadership (M 2.15, SD 0.71) and transactional leadership (M 1.97, SD 0.60) indicate that the frequency at which R&D superiors practise either of these two forms of leadership is sometimes. Passive-avoidant leadership (M 1.10, SD 0.69) is observed once in a while. The results also show higher means on the LMX dimensions of professional respect and contribution than on dimensions of affect and loyalty. Normative commitment reports lower scores than affective commitment. Referring to Table I which shows zero-correlations among the study variables, it is found that both transformational and transactional leadership have positive and signicant associations with all dimensions of LMX and organisational commitment, with the exception that the positive relationship between transactional leadership and loyalty is insignicantly. Passive-avoidant leadership is found to have negative and signicant correlations with LMX dimensions of affect, contribution and professional respect as well as the affective and normative dimensions of organisational commitment. Results show that transactional leadership correlates positively with transformational leadership but inversely with passive-avoidant leadership. Passive-avoidant leadership reports a negative association with transformational leadership.

Leadership and leader-member exchange 661

662

LODJ 26,8

Construct 0.71 0.60 0.69 1.42 1.07 1.29 1.30 1.08 1.19 (0.72) 2 0.28 * 0.34 * 0.25 * 0.10 0.40 * 0.31 * 0.20 * (0.84) 2 0.29 * 2 0.30 * 2 0.11 2 0.48 * 2 0.31 * 2 0.21 * (0.90) 0.64 * 0.60 * 0.59 * 0.53 * 0.50 * (0.74) 0.53 * 0.58 * 0.58 * 0.45 * (0.93) 0.57 * 2 0.38 * 0.68 * 0.51 * 0.50 * 0.69 * 0.60 * 0.49 *

TF TS PA LMXA LMXC LMXL LMXP COMA COMN

Notes: *Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); a coefcient in parenthesis along main diagonal; TF, transformational leadership; LMXA,

LMX affect; LMXP, LMX professional respect; TS, transactional leadership; LMXC, LMX contribution; COMA, affective commitment; M, mean; PA, passive-avoidant leadership; LMXL, LMX loyalty; COMN, normative commitment; SD, standard deviation

Table I. Correlation matrix of study variables and descriptive statistics SD TF TS PA LMXA LMXC LMXL LMXP COMA COMN (0.85) 0.49 * 0.37 * 0.33 * (0.93) 0.52 * 0.44 * (0.89) 0.68 * (0.85)

2.15 1.97 1.10 4.68 5.16 4.54 5.41 4.39 4.12

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. From Table II, leadership explains 50.6 per cent of the variance in professional respect, 46.5 per cent of the variance in affect, 30.1 per cent of the variance in loyalty and 28.3 per cent of the variance in contribution after controlling for demographic factors. Transformational leadership has positive and signicant associations with all four dimensions of LMX. These ndings hence give support to H1.1-H1.4. Despite earlier ndings that transactional leadership correlates positively with LMX dimensions of affect, contribution and professional respect, regression analysis reects insignicant negative associations with these dimensions. On top of that, it also reports that loyalty has a negative b of 2 0.270 ( p-value , 0.000). From the negative and insignicant b of transactional leadership in its association with affect, we hence reject H2.1 which proposes a negative association between transactional leadership and affect. H2.2 which posits transactional leadership to be negatively associated with loyalty is supported (b 2 0.270, p , 0.000). As hypothesised that passive-avoidant leadership has negative associations with contribution and professional respect, we nd negative and signicant betas associated with contribution (b 2 0.171, p-value , 0.01) and professional respect (b 2 0.253, p-value , 0.000) for the independent variable, passive-avoidant leadership. These results give sufcient evidence to support H3.1 and H3.2. Consistent with previous ndings, only transformational leadership has signicant and positive associations with affective and normative commitment with reported bs of 0.601 and 0.546 for affective and normative commitment, respectively.
Independent variables (betas) Passive-avoidant leadership Transactional leadership Transformational leadership R 2 change F statistics Passive-avoidant leadership Transactional leadership Transformational leadership R 2 change F statistics Affect Loyalty Contribution Professional respect R 2 change F statistics Professional respect 2 0.253 * * * 2 0.015 0.592 * * * 0.506 * * * 32.054 * * *

Leadership and leader-member exchange 663

Affect 2 0.052 2 0.059 0.697 * * * 0.465 * * * 24.94 * * * Affective commitment 2 0.090 2 0.052 0.601 * * * 0.37 * * * 17.005 * * * 0.208 * 2 0.045 0.349 * * * 0.224 * 0.420 * * * 17.372 *

Loyalty 0.055 2 0.270 * * * 0.673 * * * 0.301 * * * 12.739 * * *

Contribution 2 0.171 * * 2 0.051 0.477 * * * 0.283 * * * 12.763 * * * Normative commitment 2 0.028 2 0.108 0.546 * * * 0.25 * * * 10.133 * * * 0.298 * * 2 0.022 0.154 0.199 * 0.314 * * * 11.006 * * *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.000

Table II. Hierarchical regression results

LODJ 26,8

664

Transformational leadership has greater impact on affective than normative commitment. H4 is hence supported. From Table II, leadership variables explain 37 per cent of the variance in affective commitment and 25 per cent of the variance in normative commitment after controlling for demographic factors. The regression analysis reports a positive association of affect with affective organisational commitment (b 0.208, p-value , 0.05), supporting H5.1. However, it fails to provide signicant support for H5.2 which proposes that loyalty has a positive association with normative organisational commitment. The results as seen in Table II reect that the four dimensions of LMX explain 42 per cent of the variance in affective commitment and 31.4 per cent of the variance in normative commitment. The three conditions proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) in testing the mediating effects of LMX quality are fullled. First, leadership variables are signicantly related to LMX quality (column (c) of Table III), where leadership explains 54.2 per cent of the variance in LMX quality ( p-value , 0.000). Second, leadership variables are also signicantly related to affective commitment (column (a)) and explain 37 per cent of the variance in affective commitment ( p-value , 0.000). Third, referring to column (d), LMX quality still has a signicant association with affective commitment with leadership variables in the equation. As leadership explains an additional 5.8 per cent of the variance in affective commitment, with a signicant b weight for transformational leadership, partial mediation of LMX quality is said to exist in the relationship between leadership and affective commitment. Similarly, the three conditions of LMX quality as a partial mediator between leadership and normative commitment are fullled. Referring to Table III, column (c), leadership explains 54.2 per cent of the variance in LMX quality ( p , 0.000). From column (a), leadership variables also explain 25 per cent of the variance in normative commitment ( p , 0.000). LMX quality reports a signicant association with normative commitment and it explains 54.2 per cent of the variance in normative commitment. Furthermore, since leadership explains an additional 2.9 per cent of the variance in normative commitment after controlling for LMX quality (column (d)), partial mediation is said to exist. The three hierarchical regressions to test the mediating effects of LMX quality reveal that LMX quality acts as a partial mediator between leadership and affective and normative commitment. Discussion of ndings Transformational leadership behaviour is reported to have signicant effects on all dimensions of LMX and organisational commitment. Owing to the transactional nature of exchange between transactional leaders and followers, transactional leadership does not have signicant associations with most dimensions of LMX, except for a negative association with loyalty. Compared to transformational leadership, transactional leadership does not associate signicantly with organisational commitment. Passive-avoidant leadership, given its non-intervening nature, has negative consequences on LMX. LMX, as conceptualised by four dimensions of affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect, also explains organisational commitment. While leadership is found to have direct impacts on organisational commitment, it also works indirectly through the mediator, LMX, in predicting organisational commitment.

Regression Dependable variable Step 1 control variables Gender Age Education Time spent under superior R2 Step 2 mediating variable LMX quality Change in R 2 due to step 2 Step 3 leadership variables Passive-avoidant leadership Transactional leadership Transformational leadership Change in R 2 due to step 3 Final R 2 F statistics Dependable variable Step 1 control variables Gender Age Education Time spent under superior R2 Step 2 mediating variable LMX quality Change in R 2 due to step 2 Step 3 leadership variables Passive-avoidant leadership Transactional leadership Transformational leadership Change in R 2 due to step 3 Final R 2 F statistics

(a) Affective 0.026 0.116 2 0.014 2 0.049 0.011

(b) Affective 2 0.004 0.079 2 0.051 2 0.068 0.011 0.607 * * * 0.366 * * *

(c) LMX quality 0.017 0.036 0.059 0.019 0.008

(d) Affective 0.020 0.104 2 0.035 2 0.055 0.011 0.353 * * * 0.366 * * *

Leadership and leader-member exchange 665

2 0.090 2 0.052 0.601 * * * 0.370 * * * 0.381 * * * 17.005 * * * Normative 0.057 0.167 * 2 0.025 2 0.076 0.018 0.527 * * * 0.275 * * * 2 0.028 2 0.108 0.546 * * * 0.250 * * * 0.268 * * * 10.133 * * *

0.377 * * * 23.639 * * * Normative 0.033 0.142 * 2 0.053 2 0.083 0.018

2 0.123 * 2 0.121 * 0.749 * * * 0.542 * * * 0.550 * * * 33.655 * * * LMX quality 0.017 0.036 0.059 0.019 0.008 0.348 * * * 0.275 * * * 2 0.123 * 2 0.121 * 0.749 * * * 0.542 * * * 0.550 * * * 33.655 * * *

2 0.048 2 0.010 0.342 * * * 0.0580 * * * 0.435 * * * 18.505 * * * Normative 0.051 0.154 * 2 0.046 2 0.082 0.018

0.293 * * * 16.232 * * *

0.014 2 0.066 0.285 * 0.029 * * * 0.322 * * * 11.466 * * *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.000

Table III. Hierarchical regression results on mediating effects of LMX quality between leadership and organisational commitment

Transformational leadership relates positively to all dimensions of LMX, with greatest impact on affect Consistent with previous studies, transformational leadership has positive associations with the quality of leader-member exchanges (Deluga, 1992; Howell and Hall-Merenda, 1999). As R&D work involves work teams, there will be many opportunities for exchanges. This positive association of LMX dimensions and transformational leadership is an indication that such leadership style help to enhance the quality of exchange in R&D work teams. A key facet of transformational leadership is its emphasis on emotions and values which builds enthusiasm of followers. Given that transformational leadership is often associated with the emotional aspects of development, it is not surprising that transformational leadership has greatest impact on the affect dimension of LMX (Bycio et al., 1995).

LODJ 26,8

High quality exchanges involving the demonstration of loyalty and professional respect can be developed as transformational leaders go beyond fullling employees lower order needs to meet higher order ones through coaching, delegation and empowerment (Bass, 1985). By entrusting meaningful work to followers, transformational leaders earn the respect of their followers (Bauer and Green, 1996). Transactional leadership has insignicant negative associations with all LMX dimensions except loyalty The insignicant negative association found between transactional leadership and LMX dimensions can be due to leaders practising active management-by-exception but not to extents that signicantly affect the exchange. It is also possible that better educated R&D professionals are less likely to be satised by traditional or transactional leadership styles (Keller, 1992). By mere recognition of followers efforts and by honouring the promises of rewards made in the transactions with their followers, leaders are not able to forge a better quality exchange with their followers. There is however signicant support for the negative association between transactional leadership and loyalty. Not only does this nding indicate that a relationship governed by transactions is inadequate, especially in trust-building, it also highlights that transactional leaders, who constantly monitor followers work procedures and criticise them when problems arise, are likely to create an air of mistrust between leaders and followers. Passive-avoidant Leadership has signicant negative association with contribution and professional respect. The results are consistent with the literature that non-leadership and/or leader passiveness do not yield positive organisational outcomes (Deluga, 1992; Yammarino and Bass, 1990). Although several conversations that Scott and Bruce (1998) conducted with R&D managers revealed that these R&D managers doubted the need for them to lead their followers, it does not imply that managers can adopt a passive or laissez faire attitude. While the negative association between non-leadership and most dimensions are understood, this study specically nds signicant support that passive-avoidant leadership produces negative impacts on followers contribution to the work dyad and their respect for their superiors as professionals. This can be attributed to the detrimental effects brought about by both the leaders nonchalance and the uncertainty associated with R&D work. In situations when followers fail to produce results in their work, they may be further demoralised by the absence of superiors intervention and motivation, leaving them to limit their contributions to the teams work. The ineffectiveness of such superiors will also cause followers to cast doubts of their professionalism, hence negatively impacting the professional respect dimension in LMX. Transformational leadership has a higher positive association with affective than normative commitment This nding lends support to the fact that transformational leaders often employ expressive tactics that appeal to the emotions of their followers (Bass and Avolio, 1997). By using idealised inuence and inspiration motivation, followers are further inclined to identify with the leaders and organisations goals and vision. Inspiring speeches and exemplary actions by the leader also have powerful effects on followers perceptions as well as motivation (Conger and Kanungo, 1987). An important goal of a

666

transformational leader is to develop followers beyond their potential. Hence, transformational leaders who are attuned to developing and satisfying the higher-order needs of followers are likely to gain their followers commitment to the organisation (Rowden, 2000). Similar to Bycio et al. (1995) ndings, transformational leadership has a positive but lower association with followers normative commitment. By the way leaders socialise their followers into the work teams and organisations, followers are likely to develop some feelings of obligation to retain membership in the organisation. Transactional and passive-avoidant leadership are less effective in affecting organisational commitment When compared to transformational leadership, transactional and passive-avoidant leadership are less effective in affecting employees affective and normative organisational commitment. This supports Bycio et al. (1995) ndings where they failed to nd a hypothesised relationship between transactional leadership and commitment. An explanation for this nding may be due to the fact that affective commitment is positively associated with competence-related experience (Meyer et al., 1998). As work associated with R&D requires commitment and substantial efforts that may not always pay off, it is easy for employees to feel disheartened, less competent, and feel work less fullling, which has the effect of detriment the followers affective attachment to the organisation, thus its less likely for followers to have a group identity and feel a sense of community and belongingness in the organization. Affect, contribution and professional respect relate positively to affective commitment This nding testies that the support and guidance followers receive from their leaders are important in determining the level of organisational commitment (Liden et al., 2000). Positive experience at work is found to correlate positively with affective commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1996). Thus in high quality exchanges characterised by affect, contribution and professional respect, leaders create positive experiences for followers and in turn contribute to followers desire to remain in their organisation (Meyer et al., 1998). Just as Liden et al. (1997) argued that leaders and followers who enjoy multiple relational contents (e.g. contribution, affect, respect, loyalty) may reap greater benets than those whose relationships are based on a single content, it is highly plausible that followers who assess the exchange with their leaders to be high on affect, contribution and professional respect, also tend to express greater affective commitment. Affect and professional respect relates positively to normative commitment It is found that exchanges between leaders and followers marked by high levels of affect and professional respect relate positively to normative commitment. Contrary to what is hypothesised that loyalty has positive association with normative commitment, a negative but insignicant association between these two variables is obtained instead. This nding is somewhat counter-intuitive as we would expect loyal followers to express greater obligation to remain committed due to the opportunities and benets that these followers receive from such a relationship (Tansky and Cohen, 2001). This insignicant nding can be attributed to the fact that loyalty is not directly associated with normative commitment. Feelings of loyalty must be translated to other

Leadership and leader-member exchange 667

LODJ 26,8

means like job satisfaction to instil followers normative commitment (Green et al., 1996). This unexpected nding warrants further research to understand why loyalty does not relate positively to normative commitment. Leadership has both direct and indirect impacts on organisation commitment via the mediator, LMX quality Partial mediation of LMX quality is found in the relationship between leadership and organisational commitment. This is to say that leadership directly and indirectly affects organisational commitment via LMX quality where LMX quality also contributes to followers organisational commitment. Despite ndings that transformational leadership is linked to leadership effectiveness, followers satisfaction and other outcomes, the underlying processes of how this is achieved are not entirely clear (Bass, 1995). Hence, with this nding of LMX quality as a partial mediator in the relationship between leadership and outcomes, it can be suggested that superiors should direct their activities of their members to achieve organisational outcomes through the quality of leader-member relationship (McClane et al., 1991). High quality exchanges require the combined efforts of leaders and followers but the responsibility of fostering and nurturing the exchange process lie more on leaders than followers (Basu and Green, 1997). With high levels of exchange being attained, followers are more likely to reciprocate by being committed to the leader. Low observation of transformational leadership style The mean score of 2.15 for transformational leadership in this study is generally lower than other studies done in similar settings. For instance, in R&D environment, studies on leadership report higher mean scores of transformational leadership ranging from 2.96 to 3.19 (Keller, 1992; Basu and Green, 1997). The high score of transformational leadership is attributed to the R&D work environment which is characterised by uncertainty, innovation and change. Such an environment calls for superior leadership to achieve greater effectiveness (Keller, 1992). The relatively low score for transformational leadership in this study is an indication that there is inadequate leadership demonstrated by R&D leaders. Two reasons are possible. First, this can be due to superiors lack of understanding of the use of leadership to enhance organisational outcomes. As most of the R& D leaders were promoted based on their technical expertise, they would think that technical skills are more important than leadership skills. Second, followers may not see the need for them to be managed or led by their superiors. One explanation for the followers apparent lack of receptivity to leader role expectations may be due to their high levels of education and high independence or their having status equality with the managers at the workplace. The relatively low score for transformational leadership could also due to cross-cultural differences as Asian culture is more attuned to paternalistic leadership. Further study should be conducted on cross-cultural impact on transformational leadership. Conclusion and implications The ndings from hierarchical regression analysis reveal that transformational leadership has positive association with the dimensions of LMX and organizational commitment. LMX quality is also found to mediate the relationship between leadership and organizational commitment. Transformational leadership but not transactional

668

leadership is more important in relation to leader-member exchanges, followers organisational commitment. Such positive inuences that transformational leaders have on followers clearly exemplify the important role that leaders play in affecting the quality of exchanges in R&D work groups as well as the commitment of their followers. Hence, R&D organisations should endeavour to select and nurture transformational leadership qualities among leaders for the potential increased performance and effectiveness of followers. These can be achieved with more stringent interviews and adequate training in leadership. The result also shows that R&D superiors and managers in Singapore are not demonstrating enough transformational leadership despite the unpredictable and uncertain nature of R&D work environments which calls for more effective leadership. This issue can be addressed by raising the awareness of the importance of effective leadership and implementing training and development programmes incorporating leadership for these R&D professionals. On a concluding note, as leadership appears to complement LMX in the determination of organisational commitment, the importance of building high-quality relationships should not be neglected. Owing to the cross-sectional design of this study, the data collected does not allow for an assessment of the direction of causality. Findings for this study should therefore be considered exploratory. The current study opens new doors for further research. For purposes of causality, it would be interesting to replicate this study in a longitudinal design to determine if the ndings of the relationships tested are likely to be sustained. As there are many situational factors in the context of R&D work which affect leadership, future studies can benet by including transformational leadership and other variables like self-efcacy beliefs or self-leadership in determining organisational commitment. Other outcomes like satisfaction and extra effort can also be examined. Comparisons can also be made between public and private R&D organisations.

Leadership and leader-member exchange 669

References Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organisation: an examination of construct validity, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 49, pp. 252-76. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441-62. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1990), The Bass and Stogdill handbook of leadership, Free Press, New York, NY. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator distinction in social-psychological research, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 1173-82. Bass, B.M. (1995), Transformational leadership redux, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 463-78. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), Transformational leadership: a response to critiques, in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, A. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 49-80. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range of Leadership: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palto Alto, CA.

LODJ 26,8

670

Basu, R. and Green, S.G. (1997), Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: an empirical examination of innovative behaviours in leader-member dyads, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 477-99. Bauer, T.N. and Green, S.G. (1996), Development of leader-member exchange: a longitudinal test, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 1538-67. Bodensteiner, W.D., Gerloff, E.A., Quick, J.C. and Slinkman, C. (1991), Management of high technology: a path analytic study of stress and distress strain, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 2, pp. 101-26. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), Further assessments of Basss (1985) conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 468-78. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in organisational settings, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 637-47. Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. and Menon, S.T. (2000), Charismatic leadership and follower effects, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 21, pp. 747-67. Dansereau, F., Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975), A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organisations, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 13, pp. 46-78. Deluga, R.J. (1992), The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez faire, transactional, transformational leadership in naval environments, in Clark, K.E., Clark, M.B. and Campbell, D.P. (Eds), Impact of Leadership, Centre of Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, pp. 237-47. Den Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman, P.L. (1997), Transactional versus transformational leadership: an analysis of the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 19-34. Dienesch, R.M. and Liden, R.C. (1986), Leader-member exchange model of leadership: a critique and further development, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 618-34. Duchon, D., Green, S.G. and Taber, T.D. (1986), Vertical dyad linkage: a longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures and consequences, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 56-60. Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 827-44. Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A. and Sommerkamp, P. (1982), The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 30, pp. 109-31. Green, S.G., Anderson, S.E. and Shivers, S.L. (1996), Demographic and organisational inuences leader-member exchange and related work attitudes, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 66, pp. 203-14. Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated business unit performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 891-902. Howell, J.M. and Hall-Merenda, K.E. (1999), The ties that bind: the impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 680-94. Keller, R.T. (1992), Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 489-501.

Kessler, E.H. and Chakrabarti, A.K. (1996), Innovation speed: a conceptual model of context, antecedents and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 1143-91. Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M. and Terborg, J.R. (1995), The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 16, pp. 319-33. Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 43-72. Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997), Leader-member exchange theory: the past and potential for the future, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 15, pp. 47-119. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Stilwell, D. (1993), A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 662-74. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships and work outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 407-16. Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 385-425. McClane, W.E., Mento, A.J. and Burbridge, J.J.J. (1991), Leadership in the research environment: an application of LMX theory, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 2, pp. 181-92. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), A three-component conceptualisation of organisational commitment, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application, Sage, London. Meyer, J.P., Irving, P.G. and Allen, N.J. (1998), Examination of the combined effects of work values and early work experiences on organisational commitment, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 19, pp. 29-52. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Nystrom, P.C. (1990), Vertical exchanges and organisational commitments of American business managers, Group & Organisation Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 296-312. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviours, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42. Rowden, R.W. (2000), The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and organisational commitment, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 30-5. Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1998), Following the leader in R&D: the joint effect of subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behaviour, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 45, pp. 3-10. Seltzer, J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), Transformational leadership: beyond initiation and consideration, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 693-703. Snyder, R.A. and Bruning, N.S. (1985), Quality of vertical dyad linkages: congruence of supervisor and subordinate competence and role stress as explanatory variables, Group & Organisation Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 81-94.

Leadership and leader-member exchange 671

LODJ 26,8

672

Tansky, J.W. and Cohen, D.J. (2001), The relationship between organisational support, employee development, and organisational commitment: an empirical study, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 285-300. Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999), An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 591-620. Waldman, D.A. and Atwater, L.E. (1992), The nature of effective leadership and championing processes at different levels in an R&D hierarchy, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 5, pp. 233-45. Waldman, D.A. and Bass, B.M. (1991), Transformational leadership at different phases of the innovation process, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 2, pp. 169-80. Yammarino, F.J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), Transformational leadership at multiple levels of analysis, Human Relations, Vol. 43, pp. 975-95. Further reading Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998), Charismatic Leadership in Organisations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Daft, R.L. and Macintosh, N. (1978), A new approach to design and use of management information, California Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 82-92. Florent-Treacy, E. and Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2002), Global leadership from A to Z: creating high commitment organisations, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 30, pp. 295-309.