Moderating Variable

Employees Job Performance

 Commitment

(Bateman & Strasser, 1998)

 Motivation (Wlodkowski, 1999) Transformational Leadership  Idealized Influence  Inspirational Motivation  Intellectual Stimulation  Individual Consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994)

Trust

Hypotheses

H1: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between idealized influence and employee‟s job performance.

H2: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between inspirational motivation and employee‟s job performance.

H3: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between intellectual stimulation and employee‟s job performance.

H4: There is a positive significant (Transformational Leadership) impact between individual consideration and employee‟s job performance.

H5: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between idealized influence and commitment.

H6: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between inspirational motivation and commitment.

H7: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between intellectual stimulation and commitment.

H8: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between individual consideration and commitment.

H9: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between idealized influence and motivation.

H10: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between inspirational motivation and motivation.

H11: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between intellectual stimulation and motivation.

H12: There is a positive significant impact (Transformational Leadership) between individual consideration and motivation.

H13: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) idealized influence and commitment.

H14: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) inspirational motivation and commitment.

H15: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) intellectual stimulation and commitment.

H16: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) individual consideration and commitment.

H17: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) idealized influence and motivation.

H18: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) inspirational motivation and motivation.

H19: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) intellectual stimulation and motivation.

H20: Does trust moderate the relationship between (Transformational Leadership) individual consideration and motivation.

4.0 METHODOLOGY

The sample size for this study was using the Roscoe‟s (1975) as rules of thumb where the sample should be more than 30 or less than 500 in order to make generalizability to research finding. The instrument that was used in this research was a questionnaire. The questionnaire was adapted from previous researcher by Bass and Avolio (1998) with amendments and modifications made to suit the context of the study. The data collections in this study were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. Table 4.1 shows the total number of respondents.

Table 4.1 Number of Respondents Involved (n=220)

No. of No. of Percentage Number of Percentage

Questionnaire Questionnaire Returned (%) Valid Valid (%)

Distributed Returned Questionnaire

240 220 92 220 92

Table 4.2Reliability Statistics

Variables No. Original No. Cronbach’s

of Cronbach’s Aplha Of Alpha (After

Items (n=220) Items Factor

Analysis)

Idealized Influence (II) 4 .836 4 .836

Inspirational Motivation 4 .884 3 .866

(IM)

Intellectual Stimulation (IS) 4 .909 4 .909

Individual Consideration 4 .868 3 .841

(IC)

Commitment 7 .875 7 .875

Motivation 10 .919 5 .894

Trust (as moderating 11 .939 11 .939

variable) Findings:

Research Question 1

What is the strongest dimension of transformational leadership style that gives impacts on the job performance?

The hypotheses were tested by testing the influence of Independent Variables (Transformational Leadership) includes the Idealized Influence (II), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Individual Consideration (IC) on the Dependent Variables (Job Performance). Table 4.16 below indicated that the result of regression analysis for the Independent Variables and Dependent Variables.

Table 4.16

Multiple Regression Analysis between Transformational Leadership and Job Performance

Independent Variables Dependent Variables (Standardized Coefficient Beta)

Idealized Influence (II) .083

Inspirational Motivation (IM) .138

Intellectual Stimulation (IS) .145

Individual Consideration (IC) .217**

R .516

R2 .267

Significant F value .000

Durbin Watson 1.580

Notes: *significant at the 0.05 level ** significant at the 0.01 level

Finding

The table 4.16 above shows the summary of the result of multiple regression analysis of factor that impact of the Transformational Leadership Styles (Idealized Influence (II), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Individual Consideration (IC) toward Job Performance of the employees. The Independent Variables explained .267 of the variance (R Square) in Job Performance which was significant, as indicated by the F- value of 19.542 (p<.01). This indicated that the element of factors that impact of the Job Performance. From the elements of Dependent Variables, the most significant element that gave an impact toward Job Performance was Individual Consideration (IC) as the coefficient value was (β=.217,p<.01). Besides that, the researcher found the other three elements in Transformational Leadership Styles which were Idealized Influence (II) (β=.08<p.05), Inspirational Motivation (IM) (β=.138, p<.05), and Intellectual Stimulation (IS) (β=.145, p<.05). According to the regression analysis test, the strongest dimension of Transformational Leadership Styles that gave impacts on the job performance was Individual Consideration (IC) dimension whereby the value was .217 (sig.=.014, p<.01). Therefore, hypothesis H4 is accepted but H1, H2 and H3 are rejected.2.

Research Question 2

Is there any significant relationship between the transformational leadership styles and the job performance?

This section is looking into the relationship between Transformational Leadership Styles and Job Performance. In this study, the relationship between dimensions of the Transformational Leadership Style and Employee‟s Job Performance was investigated using Standard Multiple Regression Analysis.

First, the researcher tested the relationship between Transformational Leadership Styles, Idealized Influence (II) Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS), and Individual Consideration (IC) with Commitment. Transformational Leadership Styles (Independent Variables) consist of 4 elements which are Idealized Influence (II), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Individual Consideration (IC). Job Performance of employees (Dependent Variables) was constructed into 2 elements which are Commitment and Motivation. In order to elaborate the relationship between these two variables, the researcher decided to use a table for elaboration the correlation based on

r values from Cohen (1988). The table below indicates the scores.

Table 4.17

Cohen’s (1988) Guidelines for Interpreting Correlation based on r values

Table 4.18

Correlation Analysis for Variables

No. 1 2 3 4 5

Degree of Correlation r Values

Very Strong ±0.8 and 1.0

Strong ±0.6 and 0.8

Moderate ±0.4 and 0.6

Weak ±0.2 and 0.4

1 II 2 IM .756** 3 IS .688** .787** 4 IC .659** .658** .705** 5 Commitment .402** .471** .483** .469** 6 Motivation .373** .354** .353** .369** .626**

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

Finding

Based on Table 4.18, it indicated that all Transformational Leadership Styles dimensions were correlated to Job Performance of employees. It showed that there was a significant relationship between Transformational Leadership Styles (Idealized Influence (II), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Individual Consideration (IC)) and Employees Job Performance (Commitment and Motivation). It specified that there was a positive and moderate relationship between Idealized Influence (II) and Commitment (r=.402, p<.01). Motivation had a positive and week relationship to Idealized Influence (II) (r=.373, p<.01). From the table above also, it shows that Commitment had moderate and positive relationship with Inspirational Motivation (IM) (r=.471, p<.01). Meanwhile, Motivation had a weak and positive relationship with Inspirational Motivation (IM) (r=.354, p<.01). Apart from that, Intellectual Stimulation (IS) show that it had a moderate and significant relationship between Commitment whereby r value indicated a positive relationship (r=.483, p<.01). Motivation had a weak and positive relationship with Intellectual Stimulation (IS) whereby (r=.353, p<.01). In addition, the table also indicates that Commitment had a positive and moderate relationship between Individual Consideration (IC) (r=.469, p<.01). Lastly, Motivation show that it had a significant relationship between Individual Consideration (IC) whereby r value indicated a positive relationship (r=.369, p<.01).

Research Question 3

Does trust moderate the relationship between transformational leadership style and job performance?

These sections answered the research question 3 and in order to get to know these questions, hierarchical regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Based on the research question 3, there were 8 hypotheses tested as follows. Independent Variables (Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration) were tested in each of Dependent Variables (Commitment and Motivation). The researcher used a series of three step hierarchical regression analysis. Furthermore, the Independent Variables namely (Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration) were tested on Commitment, followed by Motivation. For the first 4 hypotheses, the step that researcher used as below:

Table 4.19

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Trust of Employees to Leaders Moderates on the Relationship between Transformational Leadership Styles dimensions and Commitment

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

IV

Idealized Influence (II) -.017 -.075 .584

Inspirational Motivation (IM) .188 .167 -1.043

Intellectual Stimulation (IS) .190 .133 -.221

Individual Consideration (IC) .223** .161 -.358

Moderator

Trust .296** -.853**

Idealized Influence*Trust -1.268 Inspirational Motivation*Trust 1.957 Intellectual Stimulation*Trust .643 Individual Consideration*Trust 1.521 R2 .278 .335 .437 R2 Change .278 .057 .102 F Change 20.675 18.376 9.489 Sig. of F Change .000 .000 .000 F Value 20.675 21.552 18.091 Sig. of F Value .000 .000 .000 Durbin-Watson 1.916

Notes: *significant at the 0.05 level ** significant at the 0.01 level Finding

The regression model from Table 4.19 explained the percentage of variance in the Dependent Variables of Commitment. Model 1 indicated 27.8% of the variance in the Dependent Variable (Commitment) explained in the Independent Variables (Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individual Consideration). Model 2 showed 33.5%, additional 5.7% higher than the variance in Model 1. Model 3 explains 43.7% of the variance where there was a 10.2% increment in the variance. Moreover, the researcher found out that there was no significant interaction between trust to moderate the relationship between four dimensions in Transformational Leadership Styles, Idealized Influence (II) (β=-1.268, p>.05), Inspirational Motivation (IM) (β=1.957, p>.05), Intellectual Stimulation (IS) (β=.643, p>.05), Individual Consideration (IC) (β=1.521, p>.05). Therefore, four hypotheses (H13 to H16) are rejected. However, the Durbin-Watson value of 1.916 was

still within the acceptable range.