A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AMONG OFFICERS OF THE NIGERIA ARMY

(1)

31 A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AMONG OFFICERS OF THE NIGERIA ARMY

SOLOMON JOSEPH OKWENDI, Ph.D. National Security Studies

American Military University Charlestown, West Virginia

United States

E-mail:okwendi@yahoo.com

&

RICHARD NWANKWOALA, Ph.D. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services-Division of Parole and Probation

Baltimore, United States of America E-mail:rnwankwo@hotmail.com

Abstract

Performing duties with discipline and commitment and to standards is the hallmark of a nations Army that sets them apart from civilians’. The achievement of this goal of discipline and commitment within the armed forces requires a leader who is dedicated, committed, and disciplined. Transformational Leadership has always been regarded as important parameters for leading an organization such as the Nigeria Army. This style of leadership has attracted a lot of interest from researchers, leadership theorists, scholars, and commentators alike. Transformational leaders inspire followers to accomplish more by concentrating on the follower’s codes, ethics, and moral by helping the follower align these characters with those of the organization. The study investigated the relationship between transformational leadership and officers’ commitment to the vision and goals of the Nigeria Army. Data were collected anonymously from the rank and file officers through mail in survey from 190 participants. At the end of the four weeks deadline, a total of 170 surveys were returned. Of the 170 returned surveys, 162 were usable while 8 of the questionnaires were not properly completed. The remaining survey data (N= 162) were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. The results showed that there was a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment of the officers.

Key Words: Commitment, leadership, discipline, and followers.

Introduction

The problem of leadership method and organizational commitment has been identified and was addressed in this study as no research exists on the type of leadership style employed by the Nigeria Army, nor was any study that has engaged the impact of transformational/transactional leadership style on officers job satisfaction and commitment (Luthans, 2007; Igbinovia, 2000). Yet, both leadership styles have impacted positively on employee job commitment in various organizational settings (Ho et al, 2009; Zheng & Richardo, 2009). Categorically, the transformational leadership is generally identified as the best suited for various work environments that require development, change, creativity, and initiative (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bushra & Naveed, 2011).

(2)

32 transformational leadership style argue that it is the central key to performance in both public and private organizations, including the Army (Bass & Avolio, 1985).

Conversely, transactional leadership style according to (Bass & Avolio, 1985) has 3 attributes – contingent rewards, passive management by exception and active management by exception that allows for both the leader and follower to influence each other in a way that both parties receive something of value (Adegboyega, 2009). The leader may give the follower something they want in exchange for something the leader wants (Adegboyega, 2009). Bolden, Gosling, Marturano, & Dennison, (2003) stated that employees are inspired through the use of recompense and chastisement (as cited in Taylor, 2009). However, Bass and Avolio, (1985) expanded the concept of transactional leadership and viewed both transformational and transactional leadership style as distinct elements of leadership behaviors which allow a leader to be either transactional or transformational, or both, or neither Adegboyega, 2009).

Organizational Commitment on the other hand plays a vital role in the survival of any organization. Organizational commitment has been defined as nothing but the emotional attachment of the employee towards his organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). In other words, commitment is the total capacity to act in ways that meet the organization's goals and interests (Etzioni, 1975). Etzioni (1975) argues that commitment and the authority that organizations have over members is rooted in the nature of employee involvement in the organization (p.212).

Theoretical Synthesis

The merging of transformational and transactional leadership theories, as the theoretical base for the study of leadership and organizational commitment may provide the groundwork for public safety leaders to develop plans aimed at improving job satisfaction among its employees. Each of the theory has its own concept of what is important in a leader (Chan & Chan, 2005). Although, on the surface both theories look very different from each other, some similarities exist. Both theories used the same terms but defined them differently. The researcher will attempt to synthesize the material given by the theorists by focusing on communication and relationship to help determine what is most important in an effective leader today.

Communication

Both transformational and transactional leadership theories emphasized the importance of communication in leadership function. A leader’s success within an organization is tied to his ability to communicate his intentions, visions, and goals (Drucker, 1967). Effective and strong leaders stress fundamentals like discipline, accountability, and empowering employees (Kotter, 1996; Drucker, 1967). Drucker (1967) discussed how often communication is accomplished from the top - down approach, and how managers usually do not allow employees to communicate back up the chain of command, a thing he attributed to the downfall of leaders in organizations.Kotter, (1996) suggests that communication falls into the category of leadership, where the leader must align, motivate, and inspire the people in the organization. Although the term “communication” was not used directly by (Bass & Avolio, 1985) in their transactional/transformational leadership theories, one must possess excellent communication and skills to propose contingent rewards and inspiration motivation for followers to buy into (Bass, Avolio, & Berson, 2003).

When Bass and Avolio (1985) talked about management by exception – active, intellectual stimulation, and individualized considerations in their leadership theories, they were alluding to the process that requires communication. To build an atmosphere of trust, co-operation, and collaboration between a leader and his followers, effective two-way communication must occur (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Although both theories differ from each other in definition, communication was a central point when discussing leadership characteristics.

Relationships

(3)

33 employees, and encouraging employees were important responsibilities of a leader through relationships building. According to McGuire & Kennerly (2006) relationship building was an important factor for leaders and followers. He stressed the importance of empowering employees to do some of the works a leader used to do. McGuire & Kennerly (2006) concludes that by empowering subordinates and employees, the leader is showing trust in them and a commitment to their growth, adding that this motivates employees to want the organization to be successful.

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is a theory that has to do with the degree of commitment and loyalty that employees exhibit toward employers (Chadna & Krishnan, 2009). As part of this hypothesis, determining the level of responsibility that employees feel toward an employer is important. The underlying idea is that if an employee is truly committed to the goals and aims of the organization, he or she will manifest that commitment in terms of individual work ethic, the support of company goals and generally be dedicated to the ongoing success of the employer’s business (Chiun, Ramayah, & Min, 2009).

Within the purview of organizational commitment according to Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982), there are several different levels that may be present in various combinations. One has to do with the degree of emotional attachment that an employee feels to the company. Sometimes referred to as affective commitment. It is defined as a positive sense of identification of the employee with the organization (Mowday et al, 1982). This component of organizational commitment seeks to measure the positive feelings that the employee feels for the business and its operations in general.

Closely following the affective commitment is the continuance commitment. Employees with strong continuance commitment will remain in the organization because they need organization. Here the focus is on how strongly employees see value in continuing to remain with the company. This often involves identifying the benefits that are enjoyed as the result of employment. The incentives to remain may have to do with wages or salary, benefits such as an attractive pension plan, or even intangibles like friendships that are developed within the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al, 1982).The final component in the concept of organizational commitment is known as normative commitment. This commitment is on the basis of sense of duties towards the organization, which emphasizes commitment of the person to organization and its management (Chadna & Crishnan, 2009). Under the normative commitment, factors such as the loyalty employees feel are based on a sense of obligation or gratefulness for the role of the company in the lives of employees (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al, 1982). For example, an employee may feel a commitment because the business helped to supply funds for obtaining a degree, or feel a strong attachment or gratitude because the employer provided a job during a period in which the individual was in dire need of a means of earning a living. In this situation, the employee feels an obligation to remain with the business, at least long enough for the company to receive some sort of return on its investment in the employee. In all, organizational commitment is about determining what motivates employees to stay with employers. Taking the time to understand the nature of these motivators and to what degree they exist within a given organization can often help the organization minimize the amount of employee turnover by providing understanding into how to make changes in the collective ability that allow those employees to feel promoted in the organization.

Literature Review

History of the Nigeria Army

The history of the Nigerian Army dates back to 1863, when Lt Glover of the Royal Navy selected 18 indigenes from the Northern part of the country and organized them into a local force, known as the "Glover Hausas" (Garba, 2000; Nigeria Army, 2014). This small force was used by Glover who was then the governor of Lagos to unleash punitive measures in the Lagos hinterland and to protect British trade routes around Lagos, as well as to silence all forms of opposition to the British Colonial rule. In 1865, the "Glover Hausa" metamorphosed into a regular force with the name "Hausa Constabulary" and later “Lagos Constabulary” performing both the police and military function in and around Lagos metropolis (Akinnola, 2000; Agwunobu, 1992; Nigeria Army, 2014).

(4)

34 merger of all units, i.e. Northern Nigerian Regiment and Southern Nigerian Regiment into one for administrative and security efficiency. Following the amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914, the merger of the Northern and Southern Regiments came into being and this witnessed the birth of the Nigerian Regiments (Osaghae, 1998; Nigeria Army, 2014).

The Nigeria Army went through several restructuring and reformations under the British Colonial masters until June 1st_{1958 when the British Army Council in London gave up the control of the force to the Nigerian} Government. In 1960, when Nigeria became independent, the force became known as the Royal Nigerian Army (RNA). When Nigeria became a republic, the RNA changed to the Nigerian Army. In the same year, the Army changed its uniform, rank structure and instruments from those of RWAFF to new ones including green khaki uniform Nigeria (Army, 2014).

Methodology

The study was carried out in Kaduna, Nigeria, where the 1st_{Division of the Nigeria Army Headquarter is} located between August 2013 to December 2013. To protect the identity of participants, the 190 randomly selected participants were asked to mail in their survey questionnaires through the self - addressed stamped envelopes provided by the researcher to mail in within the four weeks period that the data collection lasted. At the end of the four weeks deadline, a total of 170 surveys were returned. Of the 170 returned surveys, 162 were deemed usable while 8 of the questionnaires were not properly completed. The remaining survey data (N= 162) were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5X) also known as the rater short form developed by Bass and Avolio (1985) and consisted of 32 questions was used to measure subordinates officers perception of the transformational and transactional leadership style of their senior ranking officers. Additionally, the study also adopted the Meyer and Allen (1997) Organizational Commitment Scale that comprises of three components of organizational commitment namely; Affective Commitment (AC), Continuance Commitment (CC), and Normative Commitment to measure the organizational commitment of the officers. The organizational commitment scale has a set of 12 Likert type questions and is a self-scoring questionnaire. Responses to each of the 6 items are rated using a 5-point Likert scale with anchors labeled: 0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. The independent variable of the study was the transformational/transactional leadership style variables while the dependent variable was the 3 components of organizational commitment already mentioned above.

Hypotheses

The following two hypotheses guided the study:

Hypothesis 1a: There is a significant relationship between transformational leadership

styles and the affective, continuance, and the normative components of organizational commitments.

Hypothesis 1b: A significant relationship does not exist between transformational leadership

Hypothesis 2a: There is a significant relationship between transactional leadership

Hypothesis 2b: A significant relationship does not exist between transactional leadership

Results

Descriptive Statistics

(5)

35 work, and educational background. Regarding the gender of participants, 55% were males while 45% were females. As for participants’ highest level of education, 65% were High School graduates and had the Senior Secondary School Certificate (SSSC) while a total of 35% had the Ordinary National Diploma (OND).Regarding marital status of participants, 60% were married while 40% were single. For time at present job, 20% had 0-1 year, 30% had 2-5 years, 40% had 6 -10 years, while 10% had 11 years and above of service with the force. For the age of participants, 25% were ages 18 – 25, 30% were ages 26 - 30, 40% were of ages 31 – 35, while 5% were ages 36 and above.

Demographic variables (N=162) are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Variables

Description Percentages

Education Level

High School Diploma 65.0%

Ordinary National Diploma 35.0%

Marital Status

Single 40.0%

Married 60.0%

Time at Present Work

0-1 year 20.0%

2-5 years 30.0%

6 -10 years 40.0%

11 years and above 10.0%

Gender

Males 55.0%

Females 45.0%

Age

18 – 25 25.0%

26 – 30 30.0%

31 – 35 40.0%

36 - above 5.0%

____________________________________________________________

Reliability Analysis for MLQ and Commitment Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha)

The reliability of the variables of interest for the sample was examined with Cronbach’s alpha to determine the internal consistency of the measurement results (Brace et al, 2009). For the transformational leadership variables; the reliability coefficients ranged from .79 and .81 for transactional leadership (Brace et al., 2009). The minimum acceptable reliability is .70 (Brace et al., 2009). Therefore, the MLQ was reliable for the sample. For the Commitment Scale, the reliability coefficients ranged from “affective” .73,

(6)

36 Table. 2.

Reliability Coefficients

Variables N of Items Cronbach’s alpha

Transformation Leadership 20 0.79

Transactional Leadership 12 0.81

Commitment Scales

Affective Commitment 6 0.73

Continuance Commitment 6 0.77

Normative Commitment 6 0.74

________________________________________________________________

Correlation Matrix

The research hypotheses were examined with the Pearson r to further measure the degree of relationships between and among the variables (Sekaran, 2000). A correlation matrix for the bivariate relationships is presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Mean SD Correlation________________________

Variables__________________________________ 1 2__ _3____ _4_______5___ Transactional 3.15 .790 .321** ..300** .274** .706** 1.000 Transformational 3.37 .836 0447** .283** .368** 1.000

Normative 2.68 1.068 .731** .610** 1.000 Continuance 2.62 1.039 ..590** 1.000

Affective 2.67 1.041 1.000________________________________ **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Regression Analysis between Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment

As an additional analysis, multiple regressions were computed in order to determine the total amount of variance explained by the independent variables. The results established the direct effects of the predictor variable, and explained 20%, 9%, and 13% of the variability in affective, continuance, and normative commitments respectively. Additionally, the results also showed that only transformational leadership style was significantly correlated to affective and normative components of the commitment scale. However, no significant correlation was found between transformational leadership style and the continuance commitment. The results supports hypothesis one above. On the other hand, transactional leadership was not significantly correlated to any of the commitment components. Therefore, hypothesis two is rejected. Regression coefficients are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Regression Coefficients between Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitments ____________________________________________________________________________ Dependent Independent Standard t-value R2_{Model F}

Variable Variable Beta

____________________________________________________________________________ Transformational 0.439 4.38***

Leadership

Affective Transactional 0.011 0.107 0.20 19.81***

Commitment Leadership

0.143 1.347

Transformational Leadership

Continuance Transactional 0.199 .871 0.10 8.83***

(7)

37 Transformational

Leadership

Normative Transactional 0.029 0.274 0.14 12.48***

____________________________________________________________________________ *** p < .05; **p < .01.

Implications

The goal of the current study was to determine if a relationship existed between the transformational and transactional leadership style and the 3 components of organizational commitment – continuance, affective, and normative. The most important asset in an organization is workers (Berson & Linton, 2005; Riaz & Haider, 2010). Accordingly, organizations need to have competent, skillful, and committed leaders and workers in other to achieve the organizational goals (Berson & Linton, 2005; Riaz & Haider, 2010). The results of this study suggest several implications for the Nigeria Army leadership. The fact that only transformational leadership style of the Army leaders had a significant positive relationship with job commitment, while transactional leadership style of the Nigeria Army leaders had no significant positive relationship teaches us that organization commitment and leadership style cannot be accurately measured, as commitment is affected by numerous variables. However, extensive training of both the leaders and the followers can go a long way in improving the overall effectiveness and commitment of the Nigeria Army professionals.

Conclusion

This research investigated the relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment of subordinates’ officers’ job commitment. Leading involves people (Riaz & Haider, 2010). Therefore, the Nigeria Army and its leadership, as an indispensable source of protecting the nation’s territorial integrity must have the obligation to ensure that those in leadership positions are meeting the needs of their subordinates (Berson & Linton, 2005). To accomplish this task, suitable and accountable leadership is necessary for the success of the organization (Berson & Linton, 2005). And as Murphy and Drodge (2004) stated, a leader should be honest, grounded in the mission of the organization, and emotionally committed to the employees. Finally, Murphy (2004) contend that in order to be an effective leader one must employ behaviors that make their employees feel respected and seek out advancement opportunities for these employees. This study has therefore added to the body of knowledge in the leadership and job commitment area, by providing a yardstick for other studies in the field.

References

Adegboyega, I., A (2009). Members’ perception of the leadership styles of union leaders in Nigeria. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI 3360063).

Agwunobu, J, C. (1992).The Nigerian Military in a Democratic Society. Kaduna: Olabola Graphic Press.

Akinnola, Richard. “Fellow Countrymen…” The Story of Coup D’etats in Nigeria. Ikeja: Rich Consult, 2000.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bass, B.M, & Avolio, B.J. (1985). Leadership and Performance. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Berson, L, & Linton, J. D., (2005). An Examination of the Relationships between

Leadership Style , Quality and Employee Satisfaction in R&D versus Administrative Environments. R&D Management 35 (1), 51-60.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A Review of Leadership Theory

(8)

38 Brace, N., Kemp, R,. & Snelger, R. (2009). Spss for psychologists (4th_{ed.). New York:}

NY. Macmillan Publishers

Bushra, F., Usman, A., & Naveed, A. (2011). Effect of Transformational Leadership on

Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Banking Sector of Lahore (Pakistan) International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 18; 1-7.

Chandna P, Krishnan, V. R., (2009) organizational commitment of information technology

professionals: role of transformational leadership and work-related beliefs, Tecnia. Journal of Management Studies, 4(1), 1-13

Chan, A., & Chan, E. (2005). Impact of Perceived Leadership Styles on Work Outcomes: Case

of Building Professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 131(4), 413-422. Chiun M. L, Ramayah T and Min H W (2009) Leadership styles and organizational commitment:

A test on Malaysia manufacturing industry, African Journal of Marketing Management, 1(6), 133-139.

Drucker, P, F. (1967).The Effective Executive. (1st ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement,

and their correlates. New York: Free Press.

Garba, J. (2000). Diplomatic Soldiering. Ibadan: Spectrum books Limited, 1991; Ikeja: Rich Consult.

Ho, J.S.Y, Fie, D.Y.G, Ching, P.W, Ooi, K.B. (2009). Relationship between the full range

leadership and insurance salesperson’s job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management Science, 21 (1), 43-61.

Igbinovia, P.E. (2000). Future of the Nigeria Police. An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol 23 (4): 535 – 554.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenges (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Luthans, F. (2007). Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGuire, E., & Kennerly, S. (2006). Nurse Managers as Transformational and Transactional Leaders. Nursing Economics, 24(4), 179-185.

Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1997) Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, & application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mowday, R. T. Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. (1982) Employee-organization linkages. New York: Academic Press.

Murphy, S. A. & Drodge, E. N. (2004). The four Fs of police leadership: A case study heuristic. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6(1):1-15. Osaghae, E., E. (1998). “Crippled Giant” Nigeria since Independence. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Riaz, A. & Haider, M, H. (2010). Role of transformational and transactional leadership on job satisfaction and career satisfaction. Business. Economy. Horizon. 1, 29-38. Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business: A skill building-approach (3rd ed.).

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Zheng, G., & Richard, C.S.S. (2009). Drivers of job satisfaction as related to work performance

salary,