Transformational Leadership and Affective Commitment: Individual Organizational Learning and Motivation as Mediator
on
Heru Kristanto, Transformational Leadeship and Affective Commitmen:... 241
MATRIK: JURNAL MANAJEMEN, STRATEGI BISNIS DAN KEWIRAUSAHAAN
Homepage: https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/jmbk/index
Vol. 16 No. 2, Agustus (2022), 241-256
Transformational Leadership and Affective Commitment:
Individual Organizational Learning and Motivation as Mediator
Heru Kristanto
Universitas Kristen Duta Wacana
email: [email protected]
SINTA 2
DOI : https://doi.org/10.24843/MATRIK:JMBK.2022.v16.i02.p05
ABSTRACT
Integrating social exchange theory and social information processing theory, this study aims to examine the direct effect of transformational leadership on affective commitment through individual-level organizational learning and motivational. The study was conducted in one of the hospitals under the Christian Foundation for Public Health (Yakkum) in the city of Yogyakarta. Cross-sectional study with data from 96 participants consisting of nurses and employees (before Covid 19 pandemic). All variable measurements use a 5-point Likert Scale, and go through a process of testing the validity and reliability. Hypothesis testing was carried out using simple regression analysis and the help of SPSS software version 25. The results showed that transformational leadership had a positive effect on affective commitment and was consistent with recent research. The findings also show a positive relationship between the two variables above with the individual level organizational learning variables and motivation, so that individual level organizational learning and motivation act as a partial mediator. Implications for research and practice of our findings are discussed.
Keywords: transformational leadership, affective commitment, individual level organizational learning, motivation.
Kepemimpinan Transformasional dan Komitmen Afektif: Pembelajaran Organisasi Individu dan Motivasi sebagai Mediator
ABSTRAK
Mengintegrasikan teori pertukaran sosial dan teori proses informasi sosial, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji pengaruh langsung kepemimpinan transformasional pada komitmen afektif, melalui variabel pembelajaran organisasional level individu dan variabel motivasi sebagai pemediasi. Penelitian dilakukan di salah satu rumah sakit di bawah Yayasan Kristen untuk Kesehatan Umum (Yakkum) di Kota Yogyakarta. Studi cross-sectional dengan data berasal dari 96 orang partisipan yang terdiri dari para perawat dan karyawan (sebelum pandemi Covid 19). Semua pengukuran variabel menggunakan Skala Likert 5 poin, dan melalui proses pengujian validitas dan reliabilitas. Pengujian hipotesis dilakukan dengan analisis regresi sederhana dan bantuan software SPSS versi 25. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kepemimpinan transformasional berpengaruh positif pada komitmen afektif dan konsisten dengan penelitian akhir-akhir ini. Penemuan juga menunjukkan hubungan positif antara kedua variabel di atas dengan variabel pembelajaran organisasional level individu dan motivasi, sehingga pembelajaran organisasional level individu dan motivasi berperan sebagai pemediasi sebagian. Implikasi untuk penelitian dan praktik dari hasil penemuan didiskusikan.
Kata kunci: kepemimpinan transformasional, komitmen afektif, pembelajaran organisasional level individu, motivasi.
INTRODUCTION
House et al. (1999) define leadership as the ability to influence and motivate subordinates, therefore the maintenance of employees carried out by leaders is an important issue in the workplace. Stinghamber et al. (2015) stated that previous studies have consistently
reported a positive relationship between leadership and attitudes (eg satisfaction with the leader, subordinate commitment) and behavior of subordinates (eg performance), at the individual, group, and organizational levels (eg Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Wang et al., 2011). In particular, Bass and Riggio (2006) state that transformational leadership influences the attitudes and commitment of subordinates to leaders and organizations.
Burns (1978) stated that transformational leadership relates to the leader's ability and motivates subordinates beyond their expectations to form a commitment to the task and goals. Yukl (2006) added transformational leadership as a process of influencing changes in attitudes and assumptions of organizational members and building commitment (affective, continuance, normative) to organizational mission and goals.
According to Meyer and Allen (1997), affective commitment is defined as an employee's emotional connection to the organization, which leads to a relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment. The results of research by Pradhan and Pradhan (2015) on 480 professional software employees of private information technology companies in several Indian cities show that employee commitment and decision to stay in the organization are more inclined to emotional bonds with leaders and organizations than logical reasons. Subordinates' emotional commitment to a common goal is aroused in the process. Other studies on the direct relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment have been carried out by several researchers (eg. Lee, Woo, & Kim, 2017; Ribeiro, Yücel, & Gomes, 2018; Cho, Shin, Billing, & Bhagat, 2019).
Studies on the direct relationship between transformational leadership and commitment have limitations. This relationship does not show the true dynamics and complexity between top management actions and employee attitudes, so that research should focus on the mediating impact on the relationship between top management and employee attitudes (McCann, Langford, & Rawlings, 2006). Therefore, research on the direct relationship between transformational leadership and commitment requires mediating factors. Some examples of mediating variables in previous studies are as follows, self-concordance (Bono & Judge, 2003); collective self-efficacy (Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2004); follower beliefs (McCann, Langford, & Rawlings, 2006); psychological empowerment (Barroso Castro, Villegas Periñan, & Casillas Bueno, 2008); meaningful task content and positive organizational climate (Korek, Felfe, & Zaepernick-Rothe, 2010); perceived work impact (Peng, Liao, & Sun, 2019).
This study refers to the proposed future research from several researchs about the relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment. Bono and Judge (2003) recommend further research on the importance of leadership and motivation training programs for understanding the psychological processes of leader-follower relationships. Lee et al. (2017) stated that further research should examine the actual motivational process in the relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment. Ribeiro et al. (2018) proposed the existence of a plausible mediating variable. In addition, the Cho et al. (2019) also proposes situational factors such as organizational culture or climate.
Some suggestions for future research above show the importance of motivational factors and organizational climate as indicated by organizational attitudes that actively encourage individual learning in groups through training or encourage individuals to participate in group learning (team learning). The term learning team refers to the Fifth Discipline of Senge (1990). Based on the statement above, this study uses the variables of organizational learning perception and individual motivation.
There are two reasons why this study uses individual-level organizational learning and motivation variables to explain the effect of transformational leadership on affective commitment. First, transformational leadership increases the commitment of subordinates through the provision of intellectual stimulation (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and a process in which
leaders transmit their thoughts and moral values to subordinates and encourage subordinates to achieve common goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Wang, 2020). Second, the research model uses social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to explain reciprocal relationship between leaders and subordinates, in this context some scholars have come to the conclusion that the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinates is a kind of social exchange relationship beyond economic exchange (Wang, 2020). The interaction between leaders and individual subordinates is relationship between insiders is based on additional personal responsibilities (such as mutual trust, respect, preference or reciprocal influence) (Wang, 2020). Subordinates who have mutual trust and respect for the leader will remain in the organization due to the personal desire and loyalty to the company. Emotionally, he will try to do the best for the company.
Third, this study also uses social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) which states that individuals use information from other people around them as a social context to shape their attitudes and behavior. This social information provides clues that individuals receive from the environment that will be used to construct and shape a social reality. Through idealized influence and inspirational motivation, transformational leaders promote mutual support and trust among employees by emphasizing the collective and shared goals (Zhou & Pan, 2015). As members of the same group are exposed to the same influence of transformational leadership, they are likely to form convergent perceptions that cooperative rather than competitive relationships are the norm among group members (Zhou & Pan, 2015). A psychologically safe atmosphere makes employees comfortable working and understanding each other, so employees are always loyal and committed to their work and do not look for other alternatives.
The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of individual motivation and learning on the effectiveness of the influence of transformational leadership on affective commitment. The test is carried out in a hospital organization that has characteristics based on factors related to improving performance, including culture, leadership, organizational structure, resources, information systems, good communication lines, training, and involvement of health workers (Brand et al., 2012 ). To support the research objectives, the results of previous studies will be described and discussed further as a contribution to this research.
A hospital survey conducted by Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia (2004) showed that transformational leadership directly and indirectly affects organizational commitment. Employees want their leader to be the best problem solver and they want a leader who can guide them to the right path and present himself as an example to his subordinates. Inspirational motivation focuses on sharing ideas and views with subordinates and letting subordinates participate for the good of the company and regard the company as their place. This sense of belonging makes employees feel more committed to the company.
Top, Akdereb, and Tarcan's (2015) research on public and private hospital organizations in Turkey show that transformative leadership influences overall commitment and affective commitment (specifically) in both public and private hospitals. Ribeiro, Yücel, and Gomes's (2018) research on 476 health workers in Turkey also show that transformative leadership affects affective commitment directly, in this case, affective commitment also acts as a mediator of the relationship between transformative leadership and individual performance.
H1. Transformational leadership affects affective commitment positively.
Intellectual stimulation is a technique used by transformational leaders to motivate employees towards innovation and creative thinking. It focuses on new ways of solving problems and develops employee interest in thinking critically about problems and finding new ways to make positive changes (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This technique brings new opportunities to learn and new ideas lead to something better. Intellectual stimulation focuses more on creativity and innovation thereby helping employees increase their level of thinking and take risks for positive change. Based on this, leaders are designers, stewards, and teachers who are responsible for building organizations in which organizational members continuously improve the capability to understand complexity, and clear vision, and improve shared mental models, namely leaders who are responsible for learning ( Senge 1990: 340).
The study of Vera and Crossan (2004) identified a direct relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and organizational learning in different situations. The study of Amitay et al. (2005) in 44 public health clinics in Israel showed that transformational leadership was more intensively associated with organizational learning activities and a stronger culture of facilitating learning than transactional leadership. The influence of transformational leadership on organizational learning also occurs in the Middle East, such as research by Alsabbagh and Al Khalil (2016) on 154 administrative staff at universities in Damascus, Syria; and research by Abazeed (2018) on 286 employees of the Ministry of Technology and Communication in Jordan. The results of the same study were also carried out by Qing et al. (2019) on 467 public sector employees in China.
H2. Transformational leadership affects individual-level organizational learning positively.
Based on the theory of social action, Kanter (1968) proposed two factors that influence commitment to a social system, namely the way a system is organized and phenomenological variables, such as cognitive orientation, catechism orientation, and evaluative orientation (Krishna & Casey, 2008). Organizational learning significantly affects both the way the system is organized and the phenomenological variables. For example, if a company is organized into smaller knowledge-based units, then such an arrangement will result in higher employee engagement and engagement. High involvement with all members of a system (cognitive orientation) will lead to satisfaction and increase affective bonds with the system. Based on the description above, Krishna and Casey (2008) state their opinion that there is a relationship between the concept of the Organizational Learning Systems Model (measured by the environmental interface, action/reflection, memory/meaning, and dissemination/diffusion subsystems) and affective commitment. Increased knowledge will build a more open attitude towards opinions and constructive criticism, thereby influencing the acceptance of company values and fostering unity between employees and the organization.
Research by Ng et al. (2006) on 1770 employees and 273 part-time employees in the Southern United States showed that learning opportunities affect employees' organizational commitment. Joo and Lim (2009) stated that organizational learning culture significantly influences organizational commitment. Research that has been conducted by Yaghoubi (2010) on leaders in teaching hospitals in Iran and Tsai (2014) on nurses in hospitals in Taiwan, shows that organizational learning significantly affects organizational commitment.
H3. Individual-level organizational learning affects affective commitment positively.
Transformational leadership involves motivation and is a key aspect of leadership style. The leader wants to increase the motivation of his subordinates by focusing his attention on behavior related to charisma or intellectual stimulation as attention to subordinates to realize
results. Research by Judge and Piccolo (2004) also shows that all dimensions of transformational leadership have a positive relationship with the motivation of their subordinates, therefore it can be assumed that the dimensions of transformational leadership style will have a positive relationship with motivation.
When motivation is formed from leadership traits, it appears that a good leader takes into account the expectations of his subordinates and treats his subordinates according to their expectations (Garg & Rastogi, 2006). Several recent studies showing the direct influence of transformational leadership on motivation include By et al. (2016); Priarso et al. (2018); Piedade et al. (2019); Putra and Dewi (2019).
H4. Transformational leadership affects motivation positively.
Motivation and organizational commitment are different but related concepts (Meyer et al., 2004). Motivation theory explains why people do work. Organizational commitment theory explains why people stay in organizations to do their jobs.
Pinder (1998) defines work motivation as a set of energetic forces that direct a person to initiate work-related behavior. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) define organizational commitment as the force that binds individuals to actions that are relevant to the organization. Based on these two definitions, motivation is a broader concept than commitment, and commitment is a force that contributes to motivating behavior.
Theoretically, affective commitment is related to intrinsic motivation. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) propose that any personal or situational variable that contributes to the likelihood that a person is intrinsically motivated in an action will contribute to the development of affective commitment. Based on a literature review of 567 peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2008, Fornes et al. (2008) proposed that organizations that ensure their work is interesting (high level of intrinsic rewards) can increase organizational commitment. Johnson (2011) also found that intrinsic motivation was positively related to organizational commitment, but did not differentiate components of organizational commitment. Similarly, Andressen, Konradt, and Neck (2012) found that work motivation is positively related to affective commitment.
H5. Motivation affects affective commitment positively.
Leadership has a key role to play in enabling organizational learning to exist (Senge, 1990). Leadership will enable employees to commit to a learning process that encourages experimentation, open communication, dialogue, and continuous learning towards achieving excellence and service quality. A highly knowledge-intensive hospital organization requires continuous learning to improve its capabilities.
Organizational learning is a way for leaders to empower their subordinates. When nurses successfully serve various problems faced by patients, patients feel satisfied with hospital services. Patient satisfaction is a reflection of the commitment and professionalism of the nurses (Tsai, 2014). Nurturing the professional commitment of nurses helps encourage commitment to the organization.
H6. Organizational learning mediates the leadership relationship transformational with affective commitment.
Specifically, transformational leadership refers to the creation of connections to increase the level of motivation and morality in both leaders and followers (Burns, 1978). The
motivation of the leader causes subordinates to take a certain action. According to Bass (1995), transformational leadership encourages self-fulfillment for individuals, so that individuals will move up one step in Maslow's hierarchical model of human needs. In the hierarchy, individuals will move from the need for security and safety to the need for achievement and selfactualization (Bass, 1995).
The results of a literature review of 567 articles from 1970 to 2008, Fornes et al. (2008) proposed that organizations that guarantee interesting work (high levels of intrinsic rewards) will increase organizational commitment. This opinion is also supported by research by Huang (2015) which shows that intrinsic motivation has a positive relationship with affective commitment in the US and China. A transformational leader acts as a catalyst that translates the motivation of subordinates into commitment and their commitment into outstanding performance (Pradhan & Pradhan, 2015).
H7. Motivation mediates the relationship of transformational leadership with affective commitment
METHOD
This study was designed to determine the effect of transformational leadership, individual organizational learning, and motivation on affective commitment. Individual organizational learning variables and motivation act as mediators. The research design was confirmatory with the survey method. The four variables were measured at the individual level.
This study is a cross-sectional study in which data are collected at one point in time. The data were analyzed by linear regression and using SPSS Statistics 25 software. The research design is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research Model – The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Affective Commitment, and the Mediation Role of Individual Organizational Learning and Motivation
Respondents were employees of one of the YAKKUM Hospitals (Christian Foundation for Public Health) in Yogyakarta before the Covid 19 pandemic. The selection of hospital
employees as research respondents was because hospitals were required to provide excellent service and they involved human health issues. In addition, the health care sector is developing in the Special Region of Yogyakarta Province.
The sample selection in this study used a purposive sampling method, namely selecting respondents with certain criteria to suit the research objectives. The criteria are employees who have worked for at least 2 years, with the consideration that these employees are well-established in dealing with co-workers, superiors/leaders, and patients.
The sample were nurses and employees. As many as 110 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to nurses and employees. The returned questionnaire was 97 copies (response rate 88%), while 1 copy was not used because it did not fill in the respondent's self-profile so 96 copies was used (used rate 87%).
Measurement of transformational leadership (12 items) was adopted in part from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 6S - 21 items that measure exclusively leadership behavior developed by Bass and Avolio (1992). The measurement of affective commitment was developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The measurement of individual organizational learning comes from Marsick and Watkins (2003). The measurement of motivational variables is developed by Steers, R. M., and Braunstein, D.N. 1976 (Robbins, 1993: 238). All measurements used a 5-point Likert scale (scale 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After the questionnaires have been collected, the next step is to process data in the form of frequency distribution and percentage of respondents by gender, last education, marital status, employment status, average age, and years of service as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Respondent Profile
|
Demographic Variables |
Frequency |
Percentage | |
|
Gender |
Male Female |
25 71 |
26 % 74 % |
|
Education |
Senior High School |
17 |
17,7 % |
|
Diploma |
61 |
63,5 % | |
|
Bachelor degree |
18 |
18,8 % | |
|
Marital Status |
Married |
44 |
45,8 % |
|
Single |
52 |
54,2 % | |
|
Employment Status |
Permanent employees |
61 |
63,5 % |
|
Contract employees |
35 |
36,5 % | |
|
Average (year) Minimum (year) |
Maximum (year) | ||
|
Age |
30,73 21 |
53 | |
|
Tenure |
6,54 2 |
28 | |
Testing the validity of the research indicators was carried out using exploratory factor analysis methods with principal component analysis and varimax rotation techniques. The measurement of the level of validity was expressed by the loading factor score. According to Hair et al. (2006:779), an indicator is declared valid if it has a loading factor score of 0.500.
Reliability testing is intended to measure the accuracy and precision of the measurement procedure (Cooper & Schidler, 2006:318). The higher the level of reliability of a measuring device, the more precise the measuring device will be. Reliability testing was carried out with Cronbach's alpha which showed the instrument's consistency in measuring the concept. A construct has high reliability if there is a high intercorrelation because they measure the same latent construct. Reliability measurement provisions, namely if the value of alpha (α)
= less than 0.6 is said to be poor, between 0.6 - 0.7 is said to be acceptable (Hair et al., 2006:778), and more than 0.8 is said to be good (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016: 290).
Table 2. shows the transformational leadership indicators in as many as 12 items. Of the 12 transformational leadership items, only 9 items were valid because the loading factor value was above 0.500.
Table 2. Validity and Reliability Test Results Transformational leadership
|
Code |
Description |
Loading Factor |
Reliability (Cronbach α) |
|
P1 |
Leaders make others feel comfortable around them. |
0,746* |
0,934 |
|
P2 |
Leaders show in a few simple words what we can and should do |
0,847* | |
|
P3 |
Leaders enable others to think about old problems in new ways. |
0,821* | |
|
P4 |
Leaders help others develop themselves. |
0,821* | |
|
P5 |
Other people have faith in my leader. |
0,592* | |
|
P6 |
My leader provides an overview of what we can do. |
0,829* | |
|
P7 |
My leader provides people with a new way of seeing confusing things. |
. | |
|
P8 |
My leader lets others know how he or she thinks about what they are doing. |
0,760* | |
|
P9 |
Others are proud to be working with my leader. |
0,079* | |
|
P10 |
My leader helps others discover the meaning of his work. |
0,757* | |
|
P11 |
My leader makes others rethink ideas that haven't been asked before. |
0,110* | |
|
P12 |
My leader gives personal attention to others who seem neglected. |
0,156* |
note: * p<0,05
Table 3. presents a summary of the test results for the validity of the affective commitment variable which consists of 8 items. Of the indicators of affective commitment (8 items), 7 items were valid because the loading factor value was above 0.500.
Table 3. Affective Commitment Validity and Reliability Test
|
Code |
Description |
Loading Factor |
Reliability (Cronbach α) |
|
K1 |
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization |
0,588* |
0,809 |
|
K2 |
I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. |
0,588* | |
|
K3 |
I feel as if this organization's problems are my own. |
0,436* |
I |
|
K4 |
I think that I could not easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one. |
0,578* | |
|
K5 |
I feel like 'part of the family at my organization. |
0,514* | |
|
K6 |
I feel 'emotionally attached to this organization. |
0,615* | |
|
K7 |
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. |
0,740* | |
|
K8 |
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. |
0,750* |
Note: * p<0,05
Table 4. shows that all individual organizational learning indicators (as many as 13 items) were valid because the loading factor is above 0.500.
Table 5. shows a summary of the results of the validity of the motivation variable. Ten motivation indicators (out of 15 items) were valid because their values were above 0.500. Based on the validity test, items S8, S9, S11, S14, and S15 could not be included in the next analysis, because the loading factor was less than 0.500.
Results Table 6. shows a summary of descriptive statistics consisting of the mean, standard deviation, and correlation of research variables. Commitment variables (affective, continuous, and normative), motivation, individual-level organizational learning, and
transformational leadership use a 5 (five) point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The correlation among the variables is shown in table 6. as follows:
Table 4. Validity and Reliability Test Results Individual Organizational Learning
|
Code |
Description |
Loading Factor |
Reliability (Cronbach α) |
|
B1 |
In my organization, people openly discuss mistakes to learn from them |
0,732* |
0,926 |
|
B2 |
In my organization, people identify skills they need for future work tasks. |
0,713* | |
|
B3 |
In my organization, people help each other learn. |
0,706* | |
|
B4 |
n my organization, people can get money and other resources to support their learning. |
0,558* | |
|
B5 |
In my organization, people are given time to support learning. |
0,772* | |
|
B6 |
In my organization, people view problems in their work as an opportunity to learn. |
0,755* | |
|
B7 |
In my organization, people are rewarded for learning. |
0,855* | |
|
B8 |
In my organization, people give open and honest feedback to each other. |
0,813* | |
|
B9 |
In my organization, people listen to others’ views before speaking. |
0,648* | |
|
B10 |
In my organization, people are encouraged to ask “why” regardless of rank. |
0,746* | |
|
B11 |
In my organization, whenever people state their views, they also ask what others think. |
0,762* | |
|
B12 |
In my organization, people treat each other with respect. |
0,756* | |
|
B13 |
In my organization, people spend time building trust with each other. |
0,743* |
Note: * p<0,05
Table 5. Motivational Validity and Reliability Test Results
|
Code |
Description |
Loading Factor |
Reliability (Cronbach α) |
|
S1 |
I try very hard to improve on my past performance at work. |
0,514* |
0,786 |
|
S2 |
I enjoy a difficult challenge. |
0,594* | |
|
S3 |
I want to know how I am progressing as I complete tasks. |
0,667* | |
|
S4 |
I enjoy setting and achieving the realistic goal. |
0,701* | |
|
S5 |
I enjoy the satisfaction of completing a difficult task. |
0,604* | |
|
S6 |
I enjoy competition and winning |
0,608* | |
|
S7 |
I enjoy being in charge. |
0,550* | |
|
S8 |
I confront people who do things I disagree with. |
0,469* | |
|
S9 |
I enjoy influencing other people to get my way. |
0,399* | |
|
S10 |
I want to work to gain more control over the events around me. |
0,569* | |
|
S11 |
I often work to gain more control over the events around me |
0,195* | |
|
S12 |
I want to be liked by others. |
0,516* | |
|
S13 |
I tend to build a close relationships with co-workers |
0,560* | |
|
S14 |
I enjoy belonging to groups and organizations |
0,379* | |
|
S15 |
I enjoy working with others more than working alone. |
0,442* | |
|
Note: * p<0,05 | |||
|
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation | |
|
No. |
Standard Variable Mean 1 2 3 Deviation |
|
1 2 3 4 |
Transformational Leadership 3,46 0,65290 Affective Commitment 3,46 0,58607 0,393** Ind. Organizational Learning 3,63 0,56286 0,598** 0,388* Motivation 3,81 0,42197 0,327** 0,393** 0,243** |
|
Note: |
**p < 0,01; *p < 0,05 |
Hypothesis testing was shown in Table 7. The results of testing the effect of transformational leadership on affective commitment are positive and significant (B = 0.395; SE = 0.083; p < 0.01), so hypothesis 1 is supported. The results of testing the influence of transformational leadership on individual-level organizational learning are positive and significant (B = 0.465; SE = 0.075; p < 0.01), so hypothesis 2 is supported. The test results on the effect of individual-level organizational learning on affective commitment are positive and significant (B = 0.464; SE = 0.097; p < 0.01), so hypothesis 3 is supported.
The results of testing the effect of transformational leadership on motivation are positive and significant (B = 0.229; SE = 0.061; p < 0.01), so hypothesis 4 was supported. The results of testing the effect of motivation on affective commitment are positive and significant (B = 0.550; SE = 0.132; p < 0.01), so hypothesis 5 is supported.
The results of testing the role of individual-level organizational learning on the relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment show that: (1) significant influence of transformational leadership on affective commitment, (2) significant influence of transformational leadership on individual-level organizational learning, and (3) significant influence of individual-level organizational learning on affective commitment. It indicates that individual-level organizational learning acts as a partial mediation (Baron & Kenny,1986), so hypothesis 6 is supported.
The results of testing the role of motivation in the relationship between transformational leadership on affective commitment show that: (1) significant influence of transformational leadership on affective commitment, (2) significant influence of transformational leadership on motivation, and (3) significant influence of motivation on affective commitment. The above results indicate that motivation is a partial mediation, so hypothesis 7 is supported.
Table 7. Summary of Testing Results for the Effect of Transformational Leadership, Individual-Level Organizational Learning, and Motivation On Affective Commitment
|
Variables |
Affective Comm. |
Ind. Org. Learning |
Motivation | |||
|
B |
S.E |
B |
S.E |
B |
S.E | |
|
Transformational Leadership Ind. Organizational Learning Motivation |
0,395** 0,464** 0,550** |
0,083 0,097 0,132 |
0,465** |
0,075 |
0,229** |
0,061 |
Note: ** p < 0,01
The hypothesis 1 shows that transformational leadership will affect the emotions of nurses and employees, so they try to do and provide the best abilities for hospitals. Transformational leadership fosters feelings of love, raises the will to stay, and fosters social relationships with fellow hospital members. In addition, transformational leadership encourages employees to appreciate the values of relationships with the organization because they have become members of the hospital. These results are consistent with Lee, Woo, and Kim (2017) research which showed that transformational leadership was more likely to form an emotional attachment and affective commitment in the athletic sports department.
In the working relationships between transformational leaders and employees, the leaders provide trust and comfort to employees. The leaders make subordinates feel at home and want to spend the rest of their career in the hospital. Transformational leadership that helps others develop themselves make employees feel attached to the hospital.
The support of the results of testing hypothesis 2 shows that transformational leadership positively appreciates the performance of employees, thereby creating a sense of selfconfidence, strength, and pride in employees, as well as the courage to correct mistakes. The leader encourages employees to express their opinions and ideas without constraint or hindrance.
Hospital leaders are also proposing solutions to help employees facing difficulties at work. Leaders also encourage nurses and employees to do achievable work according to the effort, provide a climate of mutual respect, and trust their ability to achieve the desired goals. Leaders also pay attention to the personal needs of subordinates and seek to build trust. In addition, leaders raise awareness of the factors affecting performance by responding to employee questions and suggestions, so that employees can propose new ideas, offer services, and add extra effort. The description above is in line with the opinion of Slater and Narver (1995) whom stated that transformational leaders are central to integrating processes to build learning organizations.
The support of the results of testing hypothesis 3 shows that the perception of hospital employees on organizational learning only affects affective commitment in emotional or familial ties. Appreciating for learning and openness to experience makes nurses and employees more emotionally attached to the organization, especially personal loyalty to the hospital. A culture of learning and innovation will be created if the organization has patience, is tolerant of mistakes, respects differences of opinion, and becomes the hospital's values and beliefs (Bhatnagar, 2007). Inspiring a shared vision and supporting employee efforts are positively related to commitment (Bhatnagar, 2007). According to Ng et al. (2006), there is a significant positive relationship between the opportunity to learn and organizational commitment (the greater is affective commitment).
The results of testing hypothesis 4 show the growth and empowerment of nurses and employees. Individualized consideration will complete support and encourage employees. Intellectual stimulation increases the awareness of employees in facing new problems and challenges. Nurses and employees become active and satisfied, thereby increasing motivation to improve performance. Through idealized influence, transformational leaders affect the motivation of nurses and employees by example and emphasizing the importance of goals. Transformational leaders can empower subordinates' participation in the decision-making process to achieve goals and provide greater control. On the other hand, there are implications where subordinates are limited in their ability to execute tasks and cannot make decisions without the leader's presence. Psychologically, employee motivation and self-esteem depend on the recognition and approval of the leader (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), thus causing the dependence of subordinates on superiors.
The support of the results of testing hypothesis 5 shows that the influence of motivation on organizational commitment indicated the efforts of nurses and employees to improve performance as part of pride and attachment to the hospital. Setting and achieving goals by nurses and employees shows a strong sense of belonging as part of the hospital.
In addition, the commitment of nurses and employees is based on interpersonal interaction motives, love of work and organization, self-development, and extrinsic motivation. It is consistent with the research of Nazilah, Rozmi, and Fauziah (2012) state that the motivational factors are altruism, understanding, self-development, self-protection, career, and social relations.
The result of testing hypothesis 6 shows that leader who provides confidence and helps develop subordinates will create feelings of pleasure for the leader and create organizational learning for nurses and employees. Organizational learning can be enhanced through attention
to good relations between leaders and subordinates so that nurses and employees become part of the hospital.
Organizational learning is a behavior in the form of openness to discuss problems, helping each other learn, being open and honest with others, and seeing problems in the hospital as an opportunity to learn. In addition, the leader's trust and respect for the learning carried out by nurses and employees will provide open and honest feedback, so that it will cause an effort to think about staying loyal to work in the hospital.
The results of testing hypothesis 7 show that transformational leaders will provide inspiration and motivation to achieve their goals, so nurses and employees strive to improve past performance. Motivation to achieve goals encourages nurses and employees to be curious about their progress and complete complicated tasks for self-satisfaction, thereby creating hospital progress. Nurses and employees who have a high commitment will identify with the organization, are seriously involved in the work, and have a positive affection for the hospital organization.
CONCLUSION
All the relationships between variables show a positive and significant relationship. The test results also show that individual-level organizational learning and motivation partially mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment.
Although this research contributes to hospital institutions, there are limitations to the study, including the study was only conducted on one type of institution and the sample was only 96 respondents, so generalizability of the study should be considered carefully. The measurement of the variables was filled in by the respondents at the same time (cross-section), giving rise to a common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The measurement of the affective commitment variable was filled in independently by the respondent (self-reported) lead to the subjectivity of self-assessment. The subjectivity of self-assessment has the potential to assess higher affective commitment (inflated ratings) to improve self-image (Allen et al., 2000).
Based on the limitations of the research above, further research is development through replacing transformational leadership theory with other leadership theories in order to influence affective commitment, with the addition of other mediating and moderating variables. Several agendas for developing further research with more objects, like add hospitals at YAKKUM, other hospitals, and other sectors. To overcome the common method bias can be done by considering the time lag to fill in each statement item for each variable. For example, the first week of the survey is for filling out statements about transformational leadership, the second week is for filling out statements about individual-level organizational learning, and motivation, and the third week is for filling out affective commitment.
REFERENCES
Abazeed, R. A. M. (2018). Impact of transformational leadership style on organizational learning in the ministry of communication and information technology in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 9(1), 118–129
Allen, T.D., Barnard, S., Rush, M.C., & Russell, J. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference?. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1): 97–114
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Alsabbagh, M., & Al Khalil, A. H. (2017). The impact of organizational culture on organizational learning: An empirical study on the education sector in Damascus city. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4): 579-600.
Amitay, M., Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2005). Leadership styles and organizational learning in community clinics. The Learning Organization 12(1): 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470510574269
Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C. P. (2012). The relation between self-leadership and transformational leadership: Competing models and the moderating role of virtuality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1): 68-82.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8): 951– 968. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.283
Baron, R. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182
Barroso Castro, C., Villegas Periñan, M. M., & Casillas Bueno, J. C. (2008).
Transformational leadership and followers’ attitudes: the mediating role of psychological empowerment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(10), 1842–1863.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. Publisher: Free Press, New York.
Bass, B.M. (1995) Theory of Transformational Leadership Redux. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 463-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90021-7
Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.
Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Predictors of organizational commitment in India: Strategic HR roles, psychological empowerment, and organizational learning capability. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10): 1782-1811.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core Self-Evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 5–18.
Brand, B. L., Myrick, A. C., Loewenstein, R. J., Classen, C. C., Lanius, R., McNary, S. W., Pain, C., & Putnam, F. W. (2011). A Survey of Practices and Recommended Treatment Interventions Among Expert Therapists Treating Patients With Dissociative Identity Disorder and Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy.
Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0026487
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
By, L., Eriksson, F., & Jonsson, C. (2016). Transformational leadership’s effect on motivation and trust: A case study of Volvo sales region EMEA. School of Business, Society and Engineering. Malardalen University, Sweden.
Cooper, D.R., & Schindler P.S. (2006). Business research methods. Ninth Edition. Mc Graw-Hill.
Fornes, S. L., Rocco, T. S., & Wollard, K. K. (2008). Workplace commitment: A conceptual model developed from an integrative review of the research. Human Resource Development Review, 7: 339-357.
Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2006). Climate profile and organizational citizenship behavior of
teachers in public and private schools of India. The International Journal of Educational Management, 20(7): 529-541.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., Gupta, V, and Globe Coordinating Team. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE, in Mobley, W.H., Gessner, M.J. and Arnold, V. (Eds), Advances in Global Leadership, JAI Press, Stamford, CT.
Huang, Y.D. (2015). Impact of intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment: Empirical evidence from China. International Business and Management. 11(3): 31 – 44.
Available from: http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/ibm/article/view/7723
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/7723
Johnson, B. G. (2011). Performance appraisal satisfaction and intrinsic motivation as to correlated to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention in an evangelical congregationally-led denomination. Ann Arbor, MI: Anderson University.
Joo, B.K., & Lim, T. (2009). The effects of an organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity, and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1): 48–60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809334195
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 755– 768.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33(4): 499–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092438
Kark, R., Shamir, B. & Chen, G. (2003) The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246-255.
Korek, S., Felfe, J., & Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010). Transformational Leadership and Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis of Group-Level Influences and Mediating Processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 364-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320902996336
Krishna, V. & Casey, A. (2008). Employee perceptions of organizational learning as determinants of affective commitment in knowledge-intensive firms. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in the Americas (Panama City, FL, Feb 20-24, 2008).
Lee, Y. H., Woo, B., & Kim, Y. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of affective commitment. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 13(3): 373–382.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117725286
Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K.E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of learning organizations questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2):132–151.
McCann, J. A. J., Langford, P. H., & Rawlings, R. M. (2006). Testing Behling and McFillen’s syncretical model of charismatic transformational leadership. Group and Organization Management, 31(2), 237-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273061
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11: 299-326.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nazilah, M.A.S., Rozmi, I., & Fauziah, I. (2012). Relationship between motivation and organizational commitment among college student volunteers. International Business Management, 6: 512-516
Ng, T.W.H., Butts, M.M., Vandenberg, R.J., DeJoy, D.M. and Wilson, M.G. (2006). Effects of management communication, the learning opportunity, and work schedule flexibility on organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 68, 474-489.
Nhat, N. C., & Dung, N.V. (2013). Effects of motivation and job satisfaction on employees' performance at Petrovietnam-Nghe. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(6),35-48.
Peng, S., Liao, Y., & Sun, R. (2019). The influence of transformational leadership on employees’ affective organizational commitment in public and nonprofit organizations: A moderated mediation model. Public Personnel Management. 1 – 28.
DOI: 10.1177/0091026019835233
Piedade, S.D.R., Wardana, I.M., Riana, G., & Dewi, I.G.A.M. (2019). The Role of Motivation: The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Employee Performance International Research Journal of Management, IT & Social Sciences. 6 (6): 253 - 263. https://sloap.org/journals/index.php/irjmis/
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531–44.
Pradhan, S., & Pradhan, R. K. (2015). An Empirical Investigation of Relationships among Transformational Leadership, Affective Organizational Commitment, and Contextual Performance. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 19(3): 227–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262915597089
Priarso, M.T., Diatmono, P., & Mariam, S. (2018). The Effect Of Transformational Leadership Style, Work Motivation, And Work Environment On Employee Performance That In Mediation By Job Satisfaction Variables In Pt. Gynura Consulindo. Business and Entrepreneurial Review. 18 (2): 165 – 176.
Putra, G.N.S., & Dewi, I.G.A.M. (2019). Effect of transformational leadership and organizational culture on employee performance mediated by job motivation. International Research Journal of Management, IT & Social Sciences. 6 (6): 118 - 127. https://sloap.org/journals/index.php/irjmis/
Qing, M., Asif, M., Hussain, A., & Jameel, A. (2019). Exploring the impact of ethical leadership on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in public sector organizations: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Review of Managerial Science, 14: 1405-1432.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00340-9
Ribeiro, N., Yücel, İ. & Gomes, D. (2018). How transformational leadership predicts employees’ affective commitment and performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 67 (9): 1901-1917.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2017-0229
Robbins, S.P. (1993). Organizational behavior (6 th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 7th Edition, Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Slater, S.F., & Narver, J.C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing (July). Vol.59., p.63-74
Stinglhamber, F., Marique, G., Caesens, G., Desmette, D., Hansez, I., Hanin, D., & Bertrand, F. (2015). Employees’ organizational identification and affective organizational commitment: an integrative approach. PloS One, 10(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123955.
Top, M., Akdereb, M., & Tarcan, M. (2015). Examining transformational leadership, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational trust in Turkish hospitals: public servants versus private-sector employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 26 (9): 1259–1282.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.939987.
Tsai, Y. (2014). Learning organizations, internal marketing, and organizational commitment in hospitals. BMC Health Service Research, (14): 152.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159030
Vinger, G. & Cilliers, F. (2006). Effective transformational leadership behaviors for managing change. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 4 (2), 1-9
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 515–530.
https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179042596441
Wang G., Oh I.-S., Courtright S. H., Colbert A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group and Organization Management. 36: 223–270. 10.1177/1059601111401017
Yaghoubi M, Raeisi AR, Afshar M., Yarmohammadian, M.H., Hasanzadeh, A., Javadi, M., & Ansary, M. (2010). The relationship between learning organization and organizational commitment among nursing managers in educational hospitals of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in 2008-9. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research;15 (2): 83
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. 6th Ed, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-International Edition, 2006.
Discussion and feedback