1

“The Impact of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Commitment on Job

Satisfaction of Private School Teachers in Islamabad”

A STUDY ON THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISLAMABAD

SUBMITTED BY

AQSA KHALID (080602)

SUPERVISOR

IMRAN HAMEED

A Research Report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of

BBA

Department of Business Administration

Air University

2013

2

FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET

Topic of Research:

“The Impact of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Commitment on Job

Satisfaction of Private School Teachers in Islamabad”

Name of students: AQSA KHALID (080602)

Program: BBA-F-08

Approved by:

_____________________

Imran Hameed

(Project Supervisor)

_____________________

Internal Examiner

(Umar Ghauri)

_____________________

Internal Examiner

(Farooq Rashid)

_____________________

Dr. Mueen Zafar Aziz

(Dean, Faculty of Administrative Sciences)

3

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF RESEARCH

Miss Aqsa Khalid, Roll no. / Reg. No. 080602. SemesterBBA-08 has completed their research

on under my supervision.

Their topic is “The Impact of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Commitment on Job

Satisfaction of Private School Teachers in Islamabad”

This thesis has been examined by me. It has been found complete in all aspects and now fit for

presentation. The student is therefore allowed in the presentation / viva voce for defending it

before the panel of examiners.

Imran Hameed

(Supervisor)

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I am grateful to Almighty Allah for awarding me the courage to confront every

challenge in life with greater success and complete the whole thesis.

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mr. Imran Hameed, Assistant Professor of

Administrative Sciences whose guidance provided strong foundation for this research and

supported me throughout the project. His understanding, untiring advice, and encouragement

have enabled to me to complete our thesis.

I would also like to thank the all the teachers from various institutions who co-operated with me

in getting the survey done.

In the end, I am grateful to my Parents who always encouraged me in my every field and walk of

life and made this project possible.

5

ABSTRACT

This research project was to find the impact of Organizational Commitment and Supportive

Leadership on Job satisfaction of private school teachers in Islamabad. This research was carried

with a non-probability, convenient sampling. A questionnaire was devised as a survey tool to

collect the primary data. A sample size of 90 respondents was chosen out of total 120

questionnaires, and statistical tests were applied for inference-building. Three hypotheses were

developed out of which two hypotheses were accepted. According to the results, Supportive

Leadership and Organizational Commitment had an independent and positive impact on Job

Satisfaction. Interestingly, the research confirmed a partial-moderating impact of Supportive

Leadership in the link between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. This research

bears managerial implication that both Supportive Leadership and Organizational Commitment

need to be taken up as independent, distinct factors as well as interacted together by management

to boost the overall Job Satisfaction.

6

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 8

INTRODUCION ......................................................................................................................... 8

1.1: Background of the study ................................................................................................. 11

1.2: Purpose of the Research ................................................................................................. 12

1.3: Beneficiaries ................................................................................................................... 12

1:4 Literature Gap .................................................................................................................. 12

1.5: Research Objective ......................................................................................................... 13

1.6: Problem Statement.......................................................................................................... 14

1.7: Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 14

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 15

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 15

2.1: Organizational Commitment .......................................................................................... 15

2.2: Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 18

2.3: The impact of Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction ................................... 21

2.4: Supportive Leadership .................................................................................................... 22

2.5: Relationship between Supportive Leadership and Job Satisfaction ............................... 23

2.6: The relationship between Supportive Leadership and Organizational Commitment ..... 25

CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 27

THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 27

3.1: Model .............................................................................................................................. 27

3.2: Variables ......................................................................................................................... 28

3.3: Hypothesis Development................................................................................................ 27

3.4: Variable definition .......................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 30

RESEARCH METHOD ............................................................................................................ 30

4.1: Acquisition of data ......................................................................................................... 30

4.2: Population and Sampling ................................................................................................ 30

4.3: Sample size ..................................................................................................................... 30

4.4: Measures ......................................................................................................................... 31

4.5: Data Analysis................................................................................................................. 31

7

4.6: Correlation ...................................................................................................................... 32

4.7: Regression ...................................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................. 33

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 33

5.1: Normality check ............................................................................................................. 33

5.2: Reliability – Internal Consistency .................................................................................. 33

5.3: Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................... 35

5.4: Multicollinearity Check .................................................................................................. 36

5.5: Partial Correlation .......................................................................................................... 37

5.6: Regression Results.......................................................................................................... 38

5.7: Analysis and Findings .................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 6 .............................................................................................................................. 42

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 42

6.1: Discussion....................................................................................................................... 42

6.2: Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 42

6.3: Management Implication and Recommendation ............................................................ 43

6.4: Limitation ....................................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX (Questionairre ) ........................................................................................................ 44

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 48

8

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCION

This chapter discusses an outline of the study background and organizational

environment of companies that are working in Pakistan. The problem statement concentrates on

the critical elements that are allied with job satisfaction and the issues that have a strong impact

on this. Furthermore, this chapter highlights literature gap, research objectives, research

questions, problem statement and significance of this research.

Pakistan’s economy is known as one of the developing economies of the world. The

working atmosphere has become competitive with the increasing levels of development. Currall

et al. 2005) stated in a general context, that skilled, proficient and competent employees are

required by organizations because the productivity and organizational production is highly

reliant on employee’s performance.

Numerous difficulties faced by private, multinational and local firms while operating in

such formless market setup in Pakistan that leads employees to dissatisfaction and raises

frustration among the employees. Therefore my effort is towards maintaining overall job

satisfaction among the employees to accomplish the higher levels of organizational commitment

through my research so that employees’ efficiency is enlarged.

Rad and Yaramohammadian in 2006 demonstrated that firms cannot succeed without

appropriate commitment and hence job satisfaction is the most serious elements for the

9

maintenance of employee’s commitment. Lot of consideration has been given to organizational

commitment in preceding researches due to its imperative impact on work attitudes like effective

performances and job satisfaction of the workers.

In Pakistan, many writers have discussed the concept of different job related factors, one

of them is Job Satisfaction and it has been always very broadly researched area all over the

globe. Multiple factors have been recognized by various researchers, affecting Job Satisfaction;

however, my study emphases its link with organizational commitment and Supportive

Leadership.

Organizational commitment has been widely researched and different researchers have

identified its backgrounds and consequences. Allen & Meyer (1990) defined organizational

commitment as “psychological state that binds the individual to the organization”. Cohen (1991)

mentioned that outcomes affected by organizational commitment fluctuate across career stages

and this particularly defines the relationship between organizational commitment and income.

Similarly, employees will always be committed towards their organization if they are

satisfied with their job, leaders, pay etc. than those who are not satisfied with their job. Opkara

(in 2004) illustrated that the emphasis on Job Satisfaction and Commitment cannot be ignored

because they are the main factors of employee performance, productivity and turnover. Samad

(in 2007) stated Organizational efficiency rises when the employees are commitment and

satisfied with their organization because commitment and satisfaction leads to the higher

performance.

10

Graen & Cashmen (1975) found that employee’s commitment towards firm can be

strengthen and link between supervisors and employees can be enriched by the Supportive

Leadership. In this aspect, in order to inspire employees by giving them a responsive and

pleasant environment, supportive leader plays a vital role which leads to decrease their job stress

and other job related problems and helps them to work in an improved way. Organizations in

Pakistan have improved immensely during the past few years, thereby intensive competition

amongst organizations lead employees to put their best determination to achieve a position over

their competitors.

Geijsel et al., (2003) inferred that teacher’s sense of aptitude, enthusiasm and self-

efficacy is developed by the help of Supportive Leadership Behavior which comprises the

leader’s support of subordinates’ professional and personal development. House and Mitchell (in

1974) said that Supportive Leadership displays the concern for employees’ comfort and raises a

pleasant and responsive setting as it’s a behavior that reports the requirements and favorites of

the employees. Wallace et al. (2009) suggested that study should be done on the influence and

impact of the Leadership style on important work elements. Hence, this study and research is

considered to inspect the impact of supportive leadership on job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction can merely be defined as the feelings people have about their professions. It has

been specially defined as a pleasurable emotional state ensuing from the appraisal, an affective

reaction, and an attitude towards one’s job. These descriptions clearly show that job satisfaction

takes into account feelings, beliefs and behaviors.

There are varying definitions of job satisfaction. Alongside, they have been describing

with many measurements which are equally diverse. Job satisfaction can be defined in terms of

11

external working conditions, supervisors support, pay etc. and internal individual motivation, life

satisfaction etc. where the external factors are relatively easy to recognize and gauge the aspect

of the internal factors are more problematic. In regions where emotional intelligence is not

stressed upon nor is goal setting, the internal factors are not deliberately focused.

In Pakistan, the attention towards job satisfaction is only beginning to develop. Obviously, the

first instinctive step is to focus on the environmental or external, more controllable factors of job

satisfaction. As such the focus of this research will be to measure the job satisfaction level on the

bases of environmental factors.

1.1: Background of the study

Nanda and Brown (1977) have tried to classify the important factors of the performance

of the employee at the time of hiring and the productivity depends on number of factors like

motivation and job satisfaction

.

Balfour and Wechsler (1996) describe that the organizational commitment is a good

aspect of organizational productivity and performance. Employees’ performances can be

managed by another technique which is to plan inducement programs more strategically in a way

where organizational commitment is also addressed.

Hackman & Oldham, (1980); Herzberg, (1966) defined that Job satisfaction is the

satisfaction a worker gets from responsibilities and characteristics allied with the job and

Taormina (1999) organizational commitment. Glisson and Durick (1988); Hackman & Oldham

(1980) recognized that Satisfaction with supervision is an imperative part of job satisfaction and

12

is linked to turnover and organizational commitment. Locke (1976) contended that employee’s

job practice assists the job satisfaction to mark it in a positive mental state. Glisson and Durick

(1988) agreed with Locke (1976) that organizational commitment and job satisfaction are linked;

however, they remain separate thoughts.

Glisson & Durick (1988) recommend that as possible sponsors to job satisfaction,

including personal, organizational and job features, many basics have been studied. They also

said that Herzberg (1966) did early work on link between job characteristics and worker attitudes

based on meeting the worker‘s needs with the implication being that a positive attitude from

meeting needs via job characteristics produces job satisfaction which is known as needs-

satisfaction models. In addition, both job satisfaction and organizational commitment is linked

with the satisfaction along with the supervision (Brass, 1981; Fernandez, 2008; Hackman &

Oldham, 1976; Wu, 2009).

1.2: Purpose of the Research

The moderating impact of Supportive Leadership has been studied in past researches. The

present study aims to investigate the moderating impact of Supportive Leadership between Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in developing countries like Pakistan.

1:3 Literature Gap

Most of the modern studies were determining the mutual impact of Organizational

Commitment and leadership on employee’s turnover ratios and were measuring the impact of

leadership as a moderator. According to current literature the impact of Supportive Leadership as

13

an independent variable and its relation to Job Satisfaction was not clear. After going all previous

studies its seems interesting to determine the impact of Supportive Leadership as a moderating

variable on the relationship between the Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction.

1.4: Beneficiaries

Academic institutions play a vital role in a nation’s success. If the employees or the

professors working at different educational institutions are facing supportive leader conflicts they

can never teach well to the pupils. Obviously because if they are not getting appropriate training

or guidance from their deans or leaders, how can they be good teachers? However, an institute’s

presentation raises its status. According to this survey, if institutes in Pakistan want to compete

with institutes at international ranks they should emphasis on increasing their leadership and

mentoring as well as organizational commitment which ultimately leads towards job satisfaction

and better performance. By providing the leadership support, the teachers can perform

effectively and efficiently at the institution and will show commitment towards their

organization.

1.5: Research Objective

1. The purpose of this research is to gauge the impact of Organizational Commitment on

Job Satisfaction.

2. To identify the impact of Supportive Leadership on Job Satisfaction.

14

3. The research will inspect the impact on strength and direction of relationship that exists

between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction through the interaction effect

of Supportive Leadership.

1.6: Problem Statement

To determine the nature and intensity of relationship between Organizational Commitment and

Job Satisfaction with Supportive Leadership playing as moderating role.

1.7: Research Questions

The research questions for this study are:

1. Does Supportive Leadership have a direct association with Job Satisfaction?

2. Does Organizational Commitment have a direct association with Job Satisfaction?

3. Does Supportive Leadership play a moderating role in the relationship between

Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction?

15

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The notion that has been proposed by some researchers is that attachment of the

employees with their work is their commitment towards organization. Salanova et al (2005)

mentioned that these concepts include inspiration, whereas, Harter et al (in2005) and Salanova et

al (in 2005) stated, it also includes job participation and job satisfaction, likewise, Macey and

Schneider (in 2008) listed additional concept of organizational commitment. Stumpt& Hartman

in 1984 illustrated that feelings about work performance such as; commitment and satisfaction

and staying in organization are positive when employees and organization goals are similar.

2.1: Organizational Commitment

Allen &Meyer in 1990 defined organizational commitment as a psychological state that

fixes an employee to an organization. Mowday, Porter & Steers in 1982 outlined the difference

between behavioral commitment, the procedure by which persons’ past behavior in a firm binds

them to the organization, and attitudinal commitment, an approach in which persons consider the

congruency of their values and goals with those of their retaining organizations. In 1991, Meyer

and Allen’s conceptualization of a multi-dimensional model of firms’ commitment, the

complementarity of attitudinal and behavioral commitment was essential subject.

The three-component model of commitment established by Meyer and Allen (1997)

recommends that employees experiences organizational commitment as three simultaneous

16

approach encircling normative, continuances and affective organizational commitment, that has

been described in Allen & Meyer (1990) study in order to make an imperative contribution

towards the study. Allen & Meyer (1990) stated Organizational Commitment as “psychological

state that binds the individual to the organization.”

2.1.1: Affective commitment

According to Allen & Meyer (1990), “the employee’s emotional attachment to,

identification with, and involvement in the organization.” Affective commitment denotes to the

degree to which a person recognizes with, is involved in, and relish the membership in a firm.

Workers with affective commitment want to stay with an organization. Positive work-related

behaviors, such as; attendance, organizational citizenship behavior has always been intensely

connected to affective commitment, stated by Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, in

2002, and as an outcome much of the studies has focused on affective commitment. The recent

study that has been done by Meyer et al. (2002) emphasized the fundamentals that are related to

organizational commitment; in Allen & Meyer investigation affective commitment associate

with organizational support, interactional justice and transformational leadership. Though, a

current study done by Bowler & Brass, in 2006 has found no bond between affective

commitment and interpersonal citizenship behavior, which happens when colleagues help one

another outside of agreed job roles to the advantage of the organization.

17

2.1.2: Continuance commitment

In the view of Allen & Meyer (1990), “an awareness of the costs associated with leaving

the organization” Continuance commitment means the loyalty of the employee towards his

organization. Becker (1960) stated that the employee stays loyal to his organization without any

reward. Whereas, Continuance commitment is when the employee stays loyal to his organization

to avoid the cost of leaving or there are no alternatives or there will be a lot of retirement

benefits. Meyer et al (2002) illustrated that one of the reason behind staying loyal towards an

organization could be lack of skills, due to which employees do not prefer to shift to another

organization or then they have to pay high cost of leaving. It is obvious that when the employees

don’t have other options then they will stay loyal to their organizations. Van Breugel, Van

Olffen, & Ollie (2005) mention that the commitments of the temporary workers are higher than

the permanent workers.

2.1.3: Normative commitment

According to Allen & Meyer (1990), “a feeling of responsibility to continue

employment” The final component of the Organizational Commitment is normative

commitment, which includes a person continuing relationship in an organization out of a sense of

responsibility. Normative commitment mean that its ethical responsibility of employee to

continue work with a specific organization. Meyer & Allen (1991) study that employee feels that

his ethical obligation to work for a particular organization and the committed employee stay with

the same organization. Marsh and Mannari (1977) thirty years ago, explored that a person who

stay with the organization for a long period of time will remain committed to that organization

because they think that its ethically correct. Such type of responsibility will cause normative

18

burdens and the committed person will not focus on his own benefit but he will prefer the benefit

of organization (Wiener, 1982). Normative commitment occur just because to offer rewards in

advance to the employees.

Jaros in 1997 recommended that the normative commitment means the degree to which

the employees show the loyalty towards the organization and it helps the employees to achieve

the organizational goals.

Organizational commitment has been well-defined in a many ways all over the literature

(e.g., Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Porter et al

(1974) did research on organizational commitment and concluded that the organizational

commitment means the identification and the participation of employees in the organization to

achieve the organizational goals. Heimann & Pittenger (1996) stated that the feeling of the

employees towards the organization includes the positive and friendly behavior of coworkers and

the leaders of organization, and the positive feedback of the employees. The recent researches

show that these above mentioned factors have strong effect on the organizational commitment.

2.2: Job Satisfaction

Organization is the social system, one of the main factors to take into account the human

resources, capacity and efficiency. They need managers and employees to work hard to achieve

their goals. Without staff Commitment and hard work organization cannot succeed. It reflects

the position of the people, work, and organize their work. Generally job satisfaction can be

defined for workers on the basis of the actual results of an emotional reaction (Sean McCurry,

2004; Mosadeghrad 2003). Job satisfaction can be compared with the structure of a multi-

19

dimensional, including internal and external components of the feelings of a group of employees,

including some aspects of reward satisfactory, promotion, and working conditions, supervision,

and organizational practices and relationships with colleagues ( Misener , Etc., 1996) There are

many factors that affect job satisfaction, including salaries, benefits, achievement, recognition,

and communication autonomous, and working conditions, the importance of work, colleagues

and organizational climate, personal contacts and mutual investments. An organization is a place

where team work is done under the supervision, in order to decrease the uncertainty and the

decline in job satisfaction (Waliser 2004 Koustelios Navaie , Etc.,2003,Watch giant JG 2003 ;

Zhou et al, 2003, 1999, Nice - Mike Smith Thyer , 2003 ).

Locke (1976) defined that job satisfaction or dissatisfaction is “an emotional response to

a value judgment”. If a person sees that the job meets one’s key values, that person will

experience a “pleasurable emotion of satisfaction” (Henne and Locke, 1985: 221-240; Nebeker

et al., 2001, 29-45). Robbins (2000) mentioned that Job Satisfaction denotes to an employee’s

general attitude toward his or her job and a person who is satisfied will hold positive attitude

toward the organization.

Among the social scientist there is a high level of agreement that Job Satisfaction is a

positive emotional reaction to a particular job mentioned by Oshagbemi (2003) and Scarpello

(1992). JS is not a unitary concept. Chirchill (1974) and his co-workers defined that job

satisfaction consist of seven components; the job itself, fellow workers, supervision, company

policy and support, pay, promotion and advancement and customers.

20

Job itself: Most employees’ preferred an interesting and significant job which allows them a

achievement, development and growth. Furthermore, they want accountability, independence,

role clarity, feedback from supervisor’s statement by Henne and Locke in 1985.

Fellow workers: It is always fascinating to work with co-workers having mutual and similar

values (Henne and Locke (1985). Robbins in 2000 stated that friendly and supportive co-workers

lead to increase in job satisfaction.

Supervision: Supervisor plays an important role in making employee feel good about their

environment. Workers relish kind, honest and competent supervisors. Appreciation and rewards

on good performance and involving employees in decision making always make them feel part

of the organization (Henne and Locke, 1985: 221-240).

Company policy: Organization must show respect to employees and their values (Henne and

Locke, 1985: 221-240).

Pay: Salary influence over all employees’ job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Oshagbemi and

Hickson, 2003: 357-367). Salary should be fair enough to meet employee’s needs (Henne and

Locke, 1985: 221-240).

Promotion: A promotion denotes the progress in designation or a position that means to have

higher rank, increased duty and/or higher salary (Jackson and Schuler, 2000: 265; Dessler, 2008:

387). Fair and unambiguous promotion system should be follow for the employees. When

21

promotion decisions are take fairly then employees are more satisfied with their job (Robbins,

2000: 20).

Ethical climate and job satisfaction: Organizations can develop an ethical climate by executing

and applying code of ethics and policies, rewarding ethical behaviors (Schwepker, 2001: 39-52).

2.3: The impact of Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction.

There is no hesitation saying that organizational commitment leads to job satisfaction.

One of the factors of Organizational Commitment is known as Job satisfaction (Kovach, 1977).

La Lopa (1997) specified that significant predictor of organizational commitment is a job

satisfaction. Many facts have been studied to predict employee qualities such as performance,

organizational commitment, and service quality (Dienhart and Gregoire, 1993). Tai et al. (1998)

noticed that Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment are highly correlated. Markovits et

al., (2007); recommended that the most influential affective organizational commitment was

found with respect to levels of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Johnson and Johnson,

(2000) specified that the employees attitudes is developed toward such job levels as work, pay,

promotion, co-workers, company policies, supervisors and customers. According to Brown and

Peterson, (1993) job satisfaction is an antecedent to organizational commitment. They also

proposed a more detailed relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Boles et al. (2007) specify that job satisfaction is more strongly related to organizational

commitment. Babakus et all (1999) Job Satisfaction has received more importance than other

ancestors of organizational commitment. The relationship between Organizational Commitment

and Job Satisfaction cannot be ignored because some behavioral scientist stated that

22

Organizational Commitment is predictor of Job Satisfaction and some stated that Job Satisfaction

is a predictor of Organizational Commitment.

A number of researchers were done on the relationship between Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Commitment. For instance, Curry, Wakefield, Price and Mueller (1986)

identified no significant relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction.

Yet, other researchers (Busch et al., 1998; Chiu-Yueh, 2000; Feinstein & Vondraek, 2006;

Freund, 2005; Mannheim et al., 1997) identified that job satisfaction was a significant predictor

of organizational commitment. Some researchers claimed that job satisfaction reflects immediate

affective reactions to the job while commitment to the organization develops more slowly after

the individual forms more comprehensive valuations of the employing organization, its values,

and expectations and one’s own future in it. Therefore, job satisfaction is perceived as one of the

factors of organizational commitment (Mannheim et al., 1997). Hence, it is understood that

highly satisfied workers will be more committed to the firm.

2.4: Supportive Leadership

More specifically, Supportive Leadership provides a favorable environment of trust, so

that employees can fully participate in the effort, in their professional roles, to establish a link

between leadership support and commitment towards the firm.

York-Barr and Duke, (2004) did a research of two decades on teacher leadership and they

discussed questions such as: What teacher leaders should do? What are their effects? What

circumstances influence teacher leadership? How they can be prepared? The results emphasized

the importance of teacher leadership.

23

Wasley studied in 1991, teacher leaders in-depth and he identified that despite different

demographics, goals and role they shared some common problems. Every teacher had different

difficulties working in schools, some teachers lacked incentives and many teachers resisted being

involved in reform efforts.

Little in 1995 presented two important viewpoints. She illustrated that when teachers

tried to work for development in the school, it was for teamwork, experimentation and flexible

use of time. McLaughlin & Talbert in 1993 announced the idea of a professional learning

community where teachers agree upon collective discussion and talk openly and discuss

curriculum. Grossman, Wineburg & Wentworth (2001) additionally illustrated the progress of a

professional learning community including the discussion over different disciplines, gender and

race.

2.5: Relationship between Supportive Leadership and Job Satisfaction

Factors in determining job satisfaction are lead, which is considered an important

indicator of job satisfaction that plays a central role. Driving management tasks, especially the

interaction between man and society. This also affects the goals of the organization process

( Skansi , 2000 ) Has shown studies conducted in different countries, most of the relationship

between active management and job satisfaction (Seo et al, 2004;. Vance and Larson,

2002; Chiok Yongfeng Lu Dunham - Taylor 2001, 2000, 2000 people Stordeur , Pearson Winton

in 2005 Mosadeghrad , 2003).

24

Leadership style is superior to another team to stay in their commitment to work and job

satisfaction ( Dahlen , 2002 , 2003 Brerggren Severinsson , Fletcher, 2001; Bass Avolio ,

1990; Northouse 2001 Dvir, 2002; Fall Friedman et al, 2001) . Support management model in

order to reduce the pressure of work, and improve staff morale, thus contributing to job

satisfaction. Suggested diverse and Rochelle (1995) that this kind of leadership that plays an

important role in job satisfaction, especially the type of conversion, the greatest impact on job

satisfaction despite the fact that the leadership of affairs expected results, and the results of

transformational leadership, and the performance is much better than expected, Louis. (1996)

found that people who were seen as people who only transactions Transformational Leadership

more effective leadership and better business results.

Some researchers (Sergiovanni in Corbally 1984 and Smithand Peterson, 1988)

illustrated that it must be the leader of the staff who can lead work place and job more satisfying

to their employees. Disciples should share vision of your organization in order to achieve

effective leadership and his main concern should be to achieve organizational goals, rather than

the interests of their own personal (low Haterand , 1988 Archibald, 2004; Durndum , Et al, 2002

Fuller et al, 1996; love, etc.). Many studies have shown that the performance of the employee to

work with the inevitable result of the leading companies in the transformation of the property.

Additionally, employees have a good relationship of cooperation to achieve played positive

results for the team plays an important role. Satisfaction with the supervision of subordinates and

found that the leadership behavior (Shim et al, 2002, Joseph, 2000, Ugboro Aubin, 2000, Massey

2000; Luthans , F , Avolio 2003 Dvir, 2002. Crump 2002. walumbwa Et al, 2004) if , and can

also reduce the pressure of work, to raise their morale. Other studies have shown that

transformational leadership is more closely related to job satisfaction including transactional

25

leadership ( Ribelin , Weimar in 2003 and Thomas in 2001, and bass Avolio , 1990 Dvir, etc.,

2002).

2.6: The relationship between Supportive Leadership and Organizational Commitment

Blau (1985) looked at the relationship between leadership style and commitment. It was

found driving style that can have a greater impact on the structure (or pattern-oriented task)

commitment to the issue of leadership style. Additionally, Williams and Smoke (1986), given its

commitment to leadership style background. For example, La Rocca, and Jones (1978) found

support for the leadership and staff with higher levels of satisfaction and lower levels of self-

reported intention to leave the organization. Moreover, Karasek, Schwartz and Theorell (1982)

found that the negative impact of job dissatisfaction and depression resulting buffer demand.

Previous studies have shown that transformational leadership is positively related to his

disciples’ commitment (Lee, 2005).

The focus of the leaders and the followers of the transactions clearly defined leadership

transactions. For example, the tasks set by the leader; the disciples came to accomplish this task,

and earned a bonus above definition. Studies have shown that the leadership of a cohesive

leadership to participate in part of the link between the change and the structure, such as

motivation, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

And Dairy Metcalfe and Alimo Metcalf (2008) Show a positive relationship between the driving

variables and their links to employment / organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

26

Given the transformational leadership, focus on shared values and promote the values of the

inspection team, leadership behavior is a way to strengthen this commitment and the positive

results of team performance.

Team-based leadership behavior aimed at developing the primacy of staff (ie, support

group) is also consistent with studies that have shown support supervision, to facilitate the

participation of behavior (Bakker et al, 2007; .. Khan, 1990, May al , 2004 and Sachs, 2006).

Khan (1990, 1992), May et al (2004) showed that the relationship between supervisors has been

associated positively with a lower value. Therefore, supervision and relations support, and

relationships with colleagues and collaborators, helps to create an environment that make

employees feels to fully participate in their work. Sachs (2006) found a positive correlation

between supervisor support and commitment, that is the way to get the job requirements, and

resources (Buck and Demerouti , 2007) Packer et al (2007) found that the potential negative

impact is committed to the protection and support of the supervisors of the job requirements.

Together, these studies suggest that a higher level of involvement of internal staff directly

exposed to profitable relationships more responsible behavior.

27

CHAPTER 3

THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

In this section the theoretical framework has been explained. This framework has been

established on the variables that we have considered. Moreover, Research model, hypothesis and

the definitions of the variables has been also mention

3.1: Model

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLE

3.2: Hypothesis Development

These are the hypothesis that I have established to observe the ‘Impact of Supportive Leadership

and Organizational Commitment on the Job Satisfaction of private school teachers of Islamabad”

Organizational

Commitment

Supportive

Leadership

Job

Satisfaction

28

H1# Organizational Commitment is directly associated with Job satisfaction.

H2# Supportive Leadership is directly associated Job satisfaction.

H3# Supportive Leadership plays a moderating role in the relationship between Organizational

Commitment and Job satisfaction.

3.3: Variables

Job satisfaction

Supportive leadership

Organizational commitment

3.4: Variable definition

Job satisfaction is the feeling of satisfaction with their work of one person. This feeling is

based on the perception of personal satisfaction and that job satisfaction can affect a person's

ability to perform well.

Supportive leadership is a friendly attitude of the leader towards the employees.The

leader should work for the comfort of employees working in the firm, providing them contented

and responsive atmosphere in order to motivate them to achieve the organizational goals.

Supporting management means that manager should let employees manage every task in their

own way instead of giving those orders. Delegation is an important part of management support,

not just managers assign tasks and then the results obtained, but through the task, they work with

the team to improve the skills and talents, they do not have to worry about the job is done until

the principal is fully eligible for employees in a particular area.

29

Organizational commitment of staff is a psychological attachment to the organization.

The basis behind many studies is to make employees feels that their job is to find ways to

improve, so that employees will be more committed to their organizations. Organizational

commitment is the sense of belongingness of the employee towards his organization.

Organizational commitment shows faithfulness and involvement of employee in the operations

and tasks of the organization in order to accomplish the organization’s goals and aims.

30

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHOD

4.1: Acquisition of data

Data has been gathered through the use of questionnaires for collecting primary data

source. Questionnaire data collection, the most widely used because each person's invitation in

response to a same set of techniques that provides an efficient means to collect samples from a

large response to quantitative analysis. Data were collected from 120 respondents. Information

through the development of the system is based on three variables job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and support of the leadership questionnaire. For data collection I have visited

Islamabad educational institutions: i.e; City School and Becon House.

4.2: Population and Sampling

For this research, non-probability convenient sampling was done. The study was

conducted in two main campuses of one of the largest running private school systems in the

country. The above campuses were chosen from the city of Islamabad in the H-8 sector. The

respondents included teachers, men and women, of different age and designations.

4.3: Sample Size

Our target population was the teaching community of private educational institutions. Out of 120

questionnaires, 89 questionnaires were filled by the faculty of our targeted respondents leaving

31

31 questionnaires incomplete. The questionnaire was dully filled by both male and female

faculty members.

4.4: Measures

The degree of Job Satisfaction balance was measured by adapting questionnaires by

Diener and Robert Biswas -Ph.D (1996). The degree of organizational commitment was

measured adapting questionnaires by (Mowday et al. (1982). Supportive leadership was

measured adapting The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire developed by Hemphill

and Coon (1957) and translated by Rahima Bt. Ahamd (1981) in addition to five items from

multifactor leadership questionnaires (MLQ) designed by Bass and Avolio (1997) were also

added.

A five point Liker-style rating scale was employed ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)

and 5 (strongly agree).

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

4.5: Data Analysis

The results were analyzed by SPSS software. Analysis and conclusions are based on the

data of the data reliability (internal consistency), the mean and standard deviation, and return to

normal.

32

4.6: Correlation

The correlation between two or more variables, the relationship between them is different

in degree and type. There are three types of correlation (-1, 0, +1) between variables. A negative

correlation means the relationship of high values of one variable with the low values of other

variable. The correlation may be within the range from 1 to -1. Value close to 1 directs to a high

degree of positive correlation, whereas, value close to -1 specifies a strong negative correlation.

The near-zero value indicates that other types of weak correlation, however, 0 indicates no

correlation. Although correlation between variables is very beneficial in order to determine

possible connections, it does not prove or disprove any causal effect (causality) between them.

4.7: Regression

Statistically, regression analysis is a statistical method to estimate the relationship

between the variables. When the attention is on the relationship between a dependent variable

and one or more independent variables, it contains many methods for modeling and analyzing

numerous variables. More specifically, regression analysis helps to understand how the typical

value of the variable varies with the change in any one independent variable, whereas the other

independent variables remain constant. This proves that the causal (cause-and-effect)

relationship between the variables.

33

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

5.1: Normality check

TABLE 5.1.1: Descriptive Statistic

N Rang

e

Minim

um

Maxim

um

Mean Std.

Deviat

ion

Varia

nce

Skewness Kurtosis

Statis

tic

Statis

tic

Statisti

c

Statisti

c

Statis

tic

Statisti

c

Statist

ic

Statis

tic

Std

.

Err

or

Statis

tic

Std

.

Err

or

SL 89 3.00 2.00 5.00 3.71 .70 .50 -.52 .25 .38 .50

OC 89 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.50 .77 .60 -.41 .25 .35 .50

JS 89 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.76 .83 .70 -.58 .25 .56 .50

Valid

N

(listwi

se)

89

Table 5.1.1 illustrates that since skewness of data is between negative and positive 1, and since

kurtosis of data is positive and below 4, the entire data is normal

5.2: Reliability – Internal Consistency

TABLE 5.2.1 Reliability Check

Variables Chronbach Alpha

OC .881

SL .863

JS .911

34

The above given table 5.2.1 shows the reliability (Internal consistency) among the

variables. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale of Organizational commitment is 0.881.

Examples of items include: “I feel respect discussing about my organization in my social circle;”

“I am happy with my organizational culture and their working setting”, “This organization has a

great deal of personal meaning to me”.

The Cronbach alpha reliability of Supportive Leadership is 0.863 in this survey.

Examples of items contain: “My supervisor takes continues feedbacks from the staff in order to

keep improving his leadership style and fully motivates and encourages his employees for the

better performance etc.”

The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale of Job satisfaction is 0.911. Examples of this

object include: “I enjoy while doing my tasks which are specified by my leader or manager”,

“My training and experience on this job has enhanced my abilities”.

35

5.3: Factor Analysis

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5

X7, Job Satisfaction: My training and experience in this job has enhanced my abilities and skill .722 .102 .233 .159 .303

X6, Job Satisfaction: I am fairly satisfied with my working environment .714 .249 .254 .173

X8, Job Satisfaction: The tasks in my job are interesting and challenging .667 .157 .213 .338

X9, Job Satisfaction: My colleagues in this job are courteous and supportive .621 .264 .158 .112

X5, Job Satisfaction: I consider my work to be very pleasant .568 .396 .132 .179 .287

X3, Job Satisfaction: Work is interesting and absorbs my complete attention .567 .313 .180 .111 .489

X1,Organizational Commitment: I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization .508 .473 .195 .288

X7, Organizational Commitment: I think I would not leave my organization even if I get a better offer

elsewhere .170 .807 .245

X8, Organizational Commitment: I have emotional, social, and economic attachment to this organization .693 .107 .180 .367

X6, Organizational Commitment: I feel sense of moral obligation to stay in this organization .122 .645 .104 .274 .339

X4, Job Satisfaction: I find real enjoyment in my work .434 .627 .138 .442

X3, Organizational Commitment: I really feel as if problems of this organization are my own .435 .613 .353

X2, Organizational Commitment: I enjoy discussing about my work and organization within my social circle .345 .574 .407

X6, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor regularly provides me with feedback on my performance .199 .808 .127 .190

X8, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor expects me face hurdles and challenges in my tasks .333 .645 .198

X5, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor trusts my abilities as well as my character .390 .295 .625

X7, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor expects reason and justification of my decisions and actions .148 .616 .158

X4, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor motivates me for hard work and performance .447 .204 .503 .345

X3, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor guides me to think clearly about my career aspirations .176 .478 .467 .389

X2, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor encourages me to improve vital aspects of my personality .404 .154 .165 .687 .204

X5, Organizational Commitment: This organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me .345 .148 .679 .210

X4, Organizational Commitment: I feel like ‘part of the family’ within this organization .138 .482 .124 .597

X1, Supportive Leadership: My supervisor motivates me to handle challenging situations and goals .474 .163 .127 .590 .235

X1, Job Satisfaction: I feel fairly satisfied with my present job .321 .248 .121 .323 .666

X2, Job Satisfaction: In most days, I am excited about my work .463 .268 .160 .230 .637

X9, Supportive Leadership: My supervisors expects me to take initiatives in difficult and risky situations .137 .194 .457 .199 .595

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 10 iterations.

36

TABLE 5.3.1: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .879

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 1443.994

df 325

Sig. .000

Factor Analysis Statistics

KMO .879

Bartlett 325***

Since above table 5.3.1 shows that KMO is > 0.6 with a value bearing 0.879, it is a significant

value. Furthermore, Bartlett Test is significant to indicate validity of results.

5.4: Multicollinearity Check

TABLE 5.4.1: Correlation Coefficient

SL OC JS

SL Pearson Correlation 1

OC Pearson Correlation .601**

1

JS Pearson Correlation .615**

.680**

1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

From Table 5.4.1 it is clear that a healthy correlation exists between Organizational Commitment

and Supportive Leadership at 0.601** level. Similarly, Job Satisfaction and Supportive

37

Leadership indicates a healthy correlation of 0.61** along with Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Commitment indicating stronger correlation of 0.68** respectively.

5.5: Partial Correlation

TABLE 5.5.1 Partial Correlation of JS, OC and SL

Control Variable: SL JS OC SL

JS

OC 0.493***

Control Variable: OC JS OC

SL

JS 0.35***

SL

Control Variable: JS JS OC

SL

OC 0.316***

SL

In above tables 5.5.1, running partial correlations by controlling for each variable, one by

one; we see that all variables have a positive and significant correlation with each other. For

example, the Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment are correlated at 0.49 levels

controlling for Supportive Leadership. Similarly, Job Satisfaction and Supportive Leadership are

correlated at 0.35 level controlled by Organizational Commitment, and similarly, Organizational

Commitment and Supportive Leadership are correlated at 0.31 levels controlling for Job

Satisfaction. All correlations are significant at 5% level. This shows all variables have a natural,

original association with each other.

38

5.6: Regression Results

TABLE 5.6.1.: Multiple Regression

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Correlations

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta

Zero-

order Partial Part Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) .498 .349 1.427 .157

SL .383 .110 .322 3.482 .001 .615 .351 .258 .639 1.565

OC .526 .100 .486 5.255 .000 .680 .493 .389 .639 1.565

a. Dependent Variable: JS

TABLE 5.6.1 Model Summary

Model R

R

Square

Adjusted

R

Square

Std.

Error of

the

Estimate

Change Statistics

Durbin-

Watson

R

Square

Change

F

Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .727a .529 .518 .58296 .529 48.283 2 86 .000 2.034

a. Predictors: (Constant), OC, SL

b. Dependent Variable: JS

TABLE 5.6.2: Anova

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 32.818 2 16.409 48.283 .000b

Residual 29.227 86 .340

Total 62.045 88

39

TABLE 5.6.3: Running regression assuming moderating impact of SL on relationship

between OC and JS

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

Correlations Collinearity

Statistics

B Std.

Error Beta

Zero-

order Partial Part Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 1.189 0.305 3.9 0

OC 0.736 0.085 0.68 8.653 0 0.68 0.68 0.68 1 1

2

(Constant) 0.498 0.349 1.427 0.157

OC 0.526 0.1 0.486 5.255 0 0.68 0.493 0.389 0.639 1.565

SL 0.383 0.11 0.322 3.482 0.001 0.615 0.351 0.258 0.639 1.565

3

(Constant) -

0.177 1.066 -0.17 0.868

OC 0.749 0.346 0.692 2.161 0.034 0.68 0.228 0.16 0.054 18.603

SL 0.58 0.314 0.489 1.846 0.068 0.615 0.196 0.137 0.079 12.704

OCXSL -

0.063 0.094 -0.337 -0.67 0.504 0.711 -0.073 -0.05 0.022 45.729

5.7: Analysis and Findings

5.7.1: Multiple Regression

Multiple regression results indicate a positive and significant impact of Supportive Leadership

and Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction. For example, Supportive Leadership with

ß=0.32, t=3.4, and p=0.001 has a positive impact on Job Satisfaction. Similarly, Organizational

Commitment with ß=0.48, t=5.2, and p=0.000 has a positive impact on Job Satisfaction. The

entire model had an F value of 48.3 at 0.001 significance level. The value of R2=0.51 proved a

model fit according to our satisfaction with Durbin Watson value of 2.03 and Variance Inflation

Factor (VIF) at 1.56 level and Tolerance level of 0.639 to prove that multi collinearity problem

did not exist in the data.

40

5.7.2: Regression for the Moderating Effect

In this research, Baron and Kenny (1986) method was used to check for a moderating role of

Supportive Leadership in the relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job

Satisfaction. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a typical moderating or interaction effect of

regression equation could be depicted as:

Y = bo + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3 (x1 x x2) + µ

This required stepwise regression that first regressed Job Satisfaction with Organizational

Commitment in the first step. Then Job Satisfaction was regressed with Supportive Leadership in

the second step, and in the end, the product of Organizational Commitment and Supportive

Leadership was used as a variable to check for a possible impact on Job Satisfaction.

For moderating effect to take place, two conditions have to be met: First, in the

moderating model (typically, Model 3) the beta values of independent and moderating variables

must increase from the previous model (typically, Model 2), and show significant levels. Second,

the interaction effect must result in a reverse beta sign (compared with previous, Model 2) and

show significant levels. If only one of the above conditions are met, the moderation would be

termed as partial or quasi-moderation.

As we run the moderating regression in Model 3, we observe the beta-value of

Organizational Commitment increases from (earlier Model 2 levels) 0.52 to 0.74 with a p-value

of 0.034. Similarly, the beta-value of Supportive Leadership increases from 0.38 to 0.58 at a p-

value of 0.068 (significant at 10% level). On the other hand, the interaction effect of

41

Organizational Commitment and Supportive Leadership shows a reverse beta sign of -0.337 and

t-value of -0.67 but at an insignificant level (p=0.50). All this indicates a quasi or partial

moderation effect. Thus in this study, Supportive Leadership plays a partial moderating role in

the relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction.

Hypothesis Findings

H1# Organizational Commitment is directly

related to the Job satisfaction.

Supported

H2# Supportive Leadership is directly related

to the Job satisfaction.

Supported

H3# Supportive Leadership plays a moderating

role in the relationship between Organizational

Commitment and Job satisfaction.

Partially Supported: A Partial/Quasi

Moderating Impact was noted

42

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1: Discussion

Hence, the overall results indicate a direct, independent effect of Supportive Leadership

and Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction. This is supported by strong correlation

coefficients that exist between these variables. This is also checked by running regression tests

among these variables that proved a significant impact of Supportive Leadership and

Organizational Commitment on the Job Satisfaction when taken as independent variables.

This research also proved a partial-moderating impact of Supportive Leadership between

Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Partial correlation tests provide some clue to

our finding where controlling for either of JS, SL and OC, one does not observe reduce strength

and significance of correlation coefficients between variables in their mutual relationships.

From the above, we found out that Supportive Leadership and Organizational

Commitment are independent variables impacting on Job Satisfaction, and further there is a

partial-moderating impact of Supportive Leadership on the relationship between Organizational

Commitment and Job Satisfaction.

6.2: Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore the nature of relationship carried by Supportive

Leadership and Organizational Commitment with Job Satisfaction. The results found a positive

43

independent impact of both variables on Job Satisfaction. Due to the fact that results found

partial- moderating impact of Supportive Leadership in link between Organizational

Commitment and Job Satisfaction, it can be interpreted that all interactions had a natural

correlation as well as impact on each other

.

6.3: Management Implication and Recommendation

It suggests that under the context studied for this research, top management needs to put

importance on both Supportive Leadership and Organizational Commitment as independent and

interactive initiatives to enhance Job Satisfaction.

6.4: Limitation

There are many limitations of this research. First most central limitation is that the

sample size was small and the institutions on which the survey is being conducted were first two

organizations. However, More than two institutions could be selected in future by increasing the

sample size. The research can also be conducted on other sectors except educational institutions

like industrial sector, banking, commercial sector, health sector etc.

44

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a student of Air University BBA-8, conducting a survey to analyze the ‘Impact of

Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction under the Moderating Conditions of Supportive

Leadership.’

Your Gender:

1. Male 2. Female

Your Industry Type:

1. Service

2. Manufacturing

3. Retail

Your Work Status

1. Senior Executive/Manager

2. Junior Executive

3. Staff

Organization Size (Number of People):

1. 1-30 2. 31-60 3. More than 60

Your Age (years):

1. 20-30 2. 31-40 3. 41-50

4. Above 50

45

Organizational commitment

Strongly

disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neutral

3

Agree

4

Strongly

agree

5

1. I would be happy to spend the

rest of my career with this

organization

2. I enjoy discussing about my

work and organization within my

social circle

3. I really feel as if problems of this

organization are my own

4. I feel like ‘part of the family’

within this organization

5. This organization has a great deal

of personal meaning to me

6. I feel sense of moral obligation to

stay in this organization

7. I think I would not leave my

organization even if I get a

better offer elsewhere

8. I have emotional, social, and

economic attachment to this

organization

46

Supportive Leadership Scale

Strongly

disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neutral

3

Agree

4

Strongly

agree

5

1. My supervisor motivates me to

handle challenging situations

and goals

2. My supervisor encourages me

to improve vital aspects of my

personality

3. My supervisor guides me to

think clearly about my career

aspirations

4. My supervisor motivates me for

hard work and performance

5. My supervisor trusts my

abilities as well as my character

6. My supervisor regularly

provides me with feedback on

my performance

7. My supervisor expects reason

and justification of my

decisions and actions

8. My supervisor expects me face

hurdles and challenges in my

tasks

9. My supervisors expects me to

take initiatives in difficult and

risky situations

47

Job Satisfaction

Strongly

disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neutral

3

Agree

4

Strongly

agree

5

1. I feel fairly satisfied with my

present job

2. In most days, I am excited about

my work

3. Work is interesting and absorbs

my complete attention

4. I find real enjoyment in my work

5. I consider my work to be very

pleasant

6. I am fairly satisfied with my

working environment

7. My training and experience in

this job has enhanced my abilities

and skill

8. The tasks in my job are

interesting and challenging

9. My colleagues in this job are

courteous and supportive

48

REFERENCES

Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990).The measurement of antecedents of affective, continuance and

normative commitment to the organization.Journal of Occupational Psychology. 63, 1-18.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., &Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and

compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 496-513.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.’ Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1173–1182.

Bass B. M. &Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full Range of Leadership Development: Manual for the

Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. California: Mind Garden Inc.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1994).Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77.

Bryman, A. (1993). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Some neglected issues.

Leadership Quarterly, 4 (3/4), 289-304.

Burke, R. J., &Greenglass, E. R. (1999).Work-life congruence and work-life concerns among

nursing staff. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 12 (2), 21-29.

49

Chiu, W. C. K., & Ng, C. W. (1999). Women-friendly HRM and organizational commitment: A

study among women and men of organizations in Hong Kong. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 72, 485-502.

Covin, J.G., &Slevin D.P. (1988), ‘The influence of organization structure on the utility of an

entrepreneurial top management style’, Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217-34.

Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. (3rd Ed). Toronto: Thompson South Western.

Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1992), Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Woman Manager,

Paul Chapman, London.

De Cieri, H., Holmes, B., Abbott, J. and Pettit, T. (2002), “Work life balance strategies: progress

and problems in Australian organizations”, Working Paper 58/02, Monash University, Victoria,

November.

Deluga, R. J. (1995). Relationship of transformational and transactional leadership with

employee influencing strategies. Leaders and the leadership process: Readings, self-assessments

and applications. IL: Austin Press.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B. &Avolio, B. J. (2002).A meta-analysis of transformational and

transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In

B. J. Avolio&F.J.Yammarino (eds.), Transformational and Charismatic leadership: The road

ahead, 2, 35-66.Oxford, U.K: Elsevier Sciences.

Falkenberg, L. and Monachello, M. (1990). Dual career and dual income families: Do they have

different needs?” Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4-5), 339-351.

50

Farris, G. C. & Lim, F. G. Jr. (1969). Effects of performance on leadership influence,

satisfaction, and subsequent performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 490-7.

Forster, N. (1999), “Another glass ceiling? The experiences of women professionals

andmanagers on international assignments”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 6, pp. 79-90.

Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K. and Markel, K.S. (1997), “Developing and testing an integrative

modelof the work-family interface”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 145-67.

Furnham, A., Petrides, K.V., Tsaosis, I., Pappas, K. and Garrod, D. (2005), “A cross-cultural

investigation into the relationships between personality traits and work values”, The Journal of

Psychology, Vol. 139, pp. 5-32.

Greene, C. N. (1975). The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinate.Journal

of Applied Psychology, 60, 187-193.

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., Donnelly J.H. Jr&Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations:

Behavior, Structure, Processes, Thirteenth Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M. & Donnelly, J. H. (2000). Organizations: Behavior, structure,

processes. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Goldberg, W. A., Greenberger, E., Koch-Jones, J., O’Neil, R., & Hamill, S. (1989).

Attractiveness of child care and related employer-supported benefits and policies to married and

single parents.Child and Youth Care Quarterly, 18, 23-37.

Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R., &Parasuraman, S. (1997). Work and family

influences on departure from public accounting.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 249-270.

51

Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource

policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and

non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.

Grzywacz, J.G., & Marks, N.F (2000).Conceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological

perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family.Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., &Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-

family conflict.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 560-568. doi:510.1037/0021-

9010.1076.1034.1560.

Hemphill, J. K. & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description

questionnaire.In R. Stogdill and A. Coons, (Eds.,), Leader Behavior: Its Description and

Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16, 321-338.

House, R. J. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974).Path-goal theory of leadership.Journal of Contemporary

Business, 3, 81-97.

Imtiaz, S.& Ahmed, M. S. (2009). The impact of stress on employee productivity,

performance and turn over: An important managerial issue. International Review of

Business Research Paper, 5(4), 468‐477.

Izraeli, D.N., Banai, M. and Zeira, Y. (1980), “Women executives in MNC subsidiaries”,

California Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 53-63

52

Jam, F. A., Akhtar, S., Inam, H., Rehman, M. A. &Hijazi, S. T. (2010). Impact of leader

behavior on employee job stress: Evidence form Pakistan. European Journal of Economics, 21,

172-179.

Janssens, M., Cappellen, T. and Zanoni, P. (2006), “Successful female expatriates as agents:

positioning oneself through gender, hierarchy, and culture”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41

No. 2, pp. 133-48.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizational

Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kossek, E. E., &Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction

relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-Human Resources research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139-149.

LaRocco, J. M. & Jones, A. P. (1978). Co-worker and leader support as moderators of stress-

strain relationships in work situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 629-634.

Lewis, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1999), “The work-family agenda in changing contexts”, Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 382-93..

Linehan, M. and Walsh, J.S. (1999), “senior female international managers: breaking the glass

border”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 264-72.

Linehan, M. and Scullion, H. (2001), “Challenges for female international managers: evidence

from Europe”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 215-28.

53

Lowin, A. & Craig, J. R. (1968). The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An

experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data. Organizational behavior and

Human Performance, 3, 440-458.

Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: the psychology of

commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mowday, R.T., Porters, L.W. & Steers, R.M. (1979).The Measurement of Organizational

Commitment.Journal of Motivational Behavior, 14.224-247.

Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. C., Hitt, M. A., &Moesel, D. (1990). Politics, lack of career progress,

and work/home conflict: Stress and strain for working women.Sex Roles, 23(3/4), 169-185.

Oluseyi, S. A. & Ayo, H. T. (2009). Influence of work motivation, leadership effectiveness and

time management on employees’ performance in some selected industries in Ibadan, Oyo State,

Nigeria. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, (16).

Orthner, D. K., & Pittman, J. F. (1986). Family contributions to work commitment.Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 48(3), 573-581.

Rafferty, A. E. & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing

developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 79, 37–61.

Scandura, T. A., &Lankau, M. J. (1997).Relationships of gender, family responsibility and

flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction.Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 18, 377-391.

54

Sharma, S.., Durand, R.M. and Gur-Arie, O. (1981). ‘Identification and analysis of moderator

variables,’ Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 291-300

Tzeng, R. (2006), “Gender issues and family concerns for women with international careers”,

Women in Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-92.

Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., &Fleeson, W. (2004).Considering the role of personality in the work-

life experience: Relationships of the big five to work-life conflict and facilitation.Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 108-130.

Wood, S. J., & de Menezes, L. (2008).Family-friendly management, organizational performance

and social legitimacy. Mimeo, Sheffield: Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield.

Work-life balance (2002). In, The Word Spy. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from

http://www.wordspy.com/words/work-lifebalance.asp

Youngblood, S., & Chambers-Cook, K. (1984). Child care assistance can improve employee

attitudes and behavior. Personnel Administrator, 29, 45-47.