Contents1.2 Purpose of the Study
2. Review of literature
2.2 Job Satisfaction
3.1 Population Sample
3.2.3 Pilot Test
3.2.5 Reliability and Validity Analysis
4. Results of finding
6. Recommendations of future research
Personnel Psychology, 51(3)
Group and Organization
The Social Service Review
Journal of Applied Psychology
Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership
Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
International Journal of Commerce & Management, 6(3/4)
Journal of Management, 17(3)
Journal of Applied Psychology
The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead ( pp. 36-66)
|An Empirical Study of Leadership Styles, Trust, Satisfaction, Commitment, and Turnover on the IT Department of Research and Development in Shanghai, China.|
Lien-Tung Chen (Dong),Yung-Ta Institute of Technology, No.316, Zhongshan Rd., Linluo Shiang, Pingtung County 909, Taiwan (R.O.C.),886-933-385-910, firstname.lastname@example.org
Shih-Yi Hsu (Clark), Lan-Yang Institute of Technology, No.9, Minzu Rd., Sindian City, Taipei County 23143, Taiwan (R.O.C.), 886-935-865-761, email@example.com
Abstract: This article examined the causal effects of transformational and transactional leadership and the mediating role of trust on follower outcomes as one model. Finding was based upon 147 employees within 12 organizations participants working on department of research and development in Shanghai. Results, based on path analyses and proposed research model indicated that transformational leadership had both direct and indirect effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment mediated through followers' trust in the leader, and did not result in employees’ turnover. However, transactional leadership had only direct effects on followers' job satisfaction, and did not influence followers’ organizational commitment, as well as would cause employees’ intention to leave.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Due to the Chinese economic policy shifting from a centrally planned economy to an approached market-oriented system, China is currently playing a major paradise in global manufacture. From 1990, there are about 200 theses and doctoral dissertations that had been tested the transformational and transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997). However, there are less attentions focusing on developing country – China. In addition, Chinese culture is often well known for its particulars and insistence on building trust through improving personal relationships into which it is difficult for foreigners to enter (Child & Mollering, 2003). When compared with the western world, China is an economically developing country. China is characterized as a low trust society, whereas trust is of the highest importance in organizations (Fukuyama, 1995; Redding, 1993).
The purpose of this paper is to exam the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and trust, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention on members of the Department of Information Technology (IT) professionals in Shanghai, China by adopted the Western leadership model as one dynamic system. The leader may find that he or she needs to implement different leadership styles with different employees under traditional organizational culture, depending on individual needs (Spreitzer, Shapiro, & Von Glinow, 2002).
2.1 Leadership Theory
Leadership is defined as the person who influences a group toward the attainment of the group’s goals (Yukl, 1989). In addition, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) state that effective leaders continually push themselves and others toward the goal, and are not tolerant of those who reject the vision or repeatedly fail to attain reasonable goals. Burns (1978) distinguishes transformational leadership from transactional leadership and concentrates leadership on morals and ethics. Transformational leadership is a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values, and transactional leaders rely on rewards and punishment to influence employee performance. Numerous studies clarify the difference between transformation and transactional leadership. Bennis and Nanus (1985) assert a "visionary" theory that has identified four fundamental strategies (attention through vision, meaning through communication, trust through positioning, and deployment of self) employed by transforming leaders. Yukl (1989) believes the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) as transactional leadership because of LMX’s reliance on exchange of rewards. Antonakis and House (2002, p. 8) present Bass and Avolio’s (1994, 1997) full-range leadership theory (FRLT) from Bass transformational/transactional theory. It includes a full range of leadership styles that cover transformational, constructive transactional and corrective transactional leadership. In this model, the leaders must get to know their followers’ individual needs, capabilities, and aspirations to discuss and develop them into more effective leaders; it is the development of both leaders and followers. There are four models summarized in Table 1 (Cox, Pearce, & Sims, 2003, p. 165).
Job satisfaction is defined as the emotional state resulting from the evaluation of one’s job and as such can be negative, positive, or neutral. According to Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, and Konopaske (2003) when crucial mental states are at the higher performance, and work motivation and job satisfaction are higher, job performance has a strong correlation with job satisfaction. Gibson et al. (2003) addressed five crucial characteristics:
In addition, to evaluate job satisfaction, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) is one of the most important measurements of job satisfaction (Weiss, England, & Lofquist, 1967).
2.3 Organizational Commitment
Nijhof, De Jong, and Beukhof (1998, p. 243) explain the organizational commitment refers to “acceptance of organizational values and to the willingness to stay”. Allen and Meyer (1990) proposed a three components model of organizational commitment to two other foci: of supervisor and work-group. The dimensions are as follows:
The Brown (1993, p. 3411) defines trust as "Faith or confidence in the loyalty, strength, veracity, etc., of a person or thing; reliance on the truth of a statement etc. without examination”. As such, it is consistent with a measurement tool used to assess interpersonal trust in a work culture. Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998) explain that trust is “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept weakness based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another" (p. 395). Trust is the foundation for building effective collaborative and organizational relationships (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998).
Price (1977) asserts turnover is the movement of members across the boundary of an organization. Most research on turnover is focused on members leaving rather than entering the organization and is concentrated on the members voluntarily leaving the organization. The body of theory on which the turnover literature is based is primarily rooted in the disciplines of psychology, sociology, and economics (Barak, Nissly, & Levin, 2001). There are three major categories of turnover antecedents that emerge from empirical studies of human service workers (Barak et al., 2001): “(1) demographic factors, both personal and work-related; (2) professional perceptions, including organizational commitment and job satisfaction; and (3) organizational conditions, such as fairness with respect to compensation and organizational culture vis-a-vis diversity” (p. 629).
Questionnaires were distributed and collected by investigators. They are leaders and subordinates in person. Participants consisted of 150 full-time employees working in the IT department of the Department of Research and Development from an Industrial Park in Shanghai, China. The research was a survey questionnaire and a convenience sample. Surveys were administered to participants on the job during working hours. This survey consisted of 87 items. It topped the variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, trust, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover, and demographics.
3.2.1 Operational Definitions
184.108.40.206 Transformational leadership behaviors. Studies consisted by Bass (1985), Howell and Avolio (1993), Bycio, Hackett, and Allen (1995), Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) identified the components of transformational leadership. They stated that leadership is charismatic whom a follower seeks to identify with the leader and imitate him or her. A leader inspires the follower with challenge and persuasion by providing meaning and understanding. In addition, the leader is intellectually stimulating, expanding the use of the follower’s abilities. Finally, the leader individually tailors his/her behavior by providing the follower with support, mentoring, and coaching.The measure used was the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x-short-form) (Bass & Avolio, 1995). The MLQ has high factor validity and reliability (Howell & Avolio, 1993). The respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of behaviors exhibited by their leader on a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = frequently, if not always. The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 2.
220.127.116.11 Transactional leadership behaviors. In leadership, the leader rewards or disciplines the follower depending on the adequacy of the follower’s performance. The factor includes Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception (Active), and Management-by-Exception (Passive). The survey questions pertaining to the measurement of Contingent Reward (CR) (4 items) are listed as 1, 9, 14, 31 from the revised MLQ-5x scale. For Management-by-Exception (Active) (MBE-A), they are 4, 20, 22, 25, and for Management-by-Exception (Passive) (MBE-P), they are 3, 10, 15, 18. The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 2.
18.104.22.168 Trust. Although a number of current conceptualizations of trust exist (e.g., Butler, 1991; Byham, 1992; Child & Mollering, 2003; Cook & Wall, 1980; Currall & Judge, 1995; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Gabarro, 1978; Giffin, 1967; Gomez & Rosen, 2001; Hosmer, 1995; Marlowe & Nyhan, 1992; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1994; Rotter, 1967), there is no clear agreement as to which one of these is best. In this study, trust is conceptualized as faith in and loyalty to the leader. It, then, is a necessary requirement for employee empowerment. The six items developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) were used to tap these dimensions. The variable was measured using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” with “strongly agree” given a ranking of 5. Trust was measured with six item. The Cronbach’s alpha was .90. The Cronbach’s alpha is also shown in Table 3.
22.214.171.124 Job satisfaction. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Ironson, Brannick, Smith, Gibson, & Paul, 1989; Quinn & Staines, 1979; Weiss, England, & Lofquist, 1967) assesses job satisfaction with 20 items of job facets where separate composites are computed for Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and General Job Satisfaction. The alpha reliability coefficient was .9. According to Weiss et al. (1967), the reliability coefficients obtained were high for Intrinsic Satisfaction. The coefficients ranged from .84 to .91. For Extrinsic Satisfaction, the coefficients varied from .77 to .82. This study measured all constructs with multiple-item scales drawn from previous research. In this approach, three constructs are typically derived: a measure of general satisfaction (20 items) on a five-point Likert-type scale, with response alternatives ranging from “Very Dissatisfied” (weighted 1) to “Very Satisfied” (weighted 5). The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 4.
126.96.36.199 Organizational commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) developed a multi-dimensional model of organizational commitment, where affective commitment (a desire), continuance commitment (a need), and normative commitment (an obligation) are identified as unique and distinct types of commitment that exist organizationally. A study by Allen and Meyer (1996) examined the construct validity of the three component organizational commitment scales that consist of 18 items. The study summarized data from over 40 employee samples representing more than 160,000 employees from a wide variety of organizations and occupations. The findings from the study using coefficient alpha found median reflecting .85 for Affective Commitment, .79 for Continuance Commitment, and .73 for Normative Commitment. Furthermore, the research conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on each of the organizational commitment scales with evidence that each factor loading was independent of one another, and had demonstrated satisfactory reliability (Cooke, 1997) and validity (Beck & Wilson, 2000) using numerous samples. The alpha coefficient for this sample was .88. This research measured all constructs with multiple-item scales drawn from previous research. The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) is a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 5.
188.8.131.52 Turnover. Turnover has one facet named subordinates turnover intention. This variable was measured with four items, two of which are reverse scored and developed by Kim, Price, Mueller, and Watson (1996), who found a Cronbach's alpha of .87. The variable was measured using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with “strongly agree” being a 5. The scores for the items were averaged to obtain the final value. Price (2001) utilized the questionnaire to examine the employee's Intent to Stay. The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 6.
In summary, the relationship of the hypothesized model between observed and latent variables is shown in Figure 1.
3.2.2 Instrument Translation
The five instruments for measuring transformational and transactional leadership, trust, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover, were combined into one instrument for this study. All of them were originally written in English. Thus, it was necessary to translate the instrument into Chinese. First of all, qualified professional language translators were requested to translate English into simplified Chinese characters, and then revised to ensure consistency of meaning. A teacher and three graduate doctoral students were invited to make up a team for the work. In order to ensure that the Chinese translation correctly reflected the meaning and distinction of the original instruments, back-translation was conducted to English. After completing the Chinese translation, bilingual reviewers who had not previously been involved in the project, were asked to determine whether the semantic sentences were clear.
^ Pilot Test
Pilot tests of the survey questionnaire were tested by ten randomly selected external employees of an electronics company in Shanghai, and were given the MLQ, TRUST, MSQ, OCQ, TURNOVER, and DEMOGRAPHIC tests. The amount of time that was required to complete the entire questionnaire by the respondents was also measured. After finishing the survey, it was then evaluated for reliability and validity according to the understanding of the questionnaire's directions. If there were critical or ambiguous questions, they were repeated the translation process and modified the wording. The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 7.
3.2.4 Data Collection
This study used five questionnaires: the transformational leadership and transactional leadership (MLQ-5x short-form) developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), job satisfaction (MSQ) adapted from Weiss, et al. (1967), organizational commitment (OCQ) adapted from Meyer, Allen, & Smith. (1993), trust questionnaire (TRUST) adapted from Podsakoff et al. (1990), and turnover questionnaire (TURNOVER) adapted from Kim et al. (1996).
The data were collected from the Department of Intelligent Technology, a special economic zone in Shanghai. The questionnaire was distributed by the investigators. Convenience selections of 12 companies throughout the special economic zone were contacted, and almost 150 subjects were returned the questionnaire. All of the employees and managers on IT departments within12 companies were volunteer to participant this study during the regular office working hours. The participants were asked to complete the self-administrated questionnaire with instructions and return it to the assistant researcher privately. All of the questionnaires were returned. Three questionnaires had some blank answers and they were deleted from the data set. A total of 147 valid questionnaires were used in this survey. The level of analysis is the individual level of analysis within 12 companies.
^ Reliability and Validity Analysis
Reliability of the measures used in the study was confirmed by acceptable inter-item correlation which for each scale exceeded the .30, as suggested by Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991). In addition, Cronbach alpha (α) values for each of the scales were computed. The values ranged between .76 and .93, indicating high internal consistency. If the value is less than .3, then the item needs to adjust or eliminated item(s) (Nunnally, 1978). In order to have high reliability and validity of questionnaires, it is necessary to examine them by the Item-Total Correlation (ITC) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) methods.
This research explores the relationship among transformational leadership and transactional leadership behavior, trust, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover on the IT Department of Research and Development. SEM is used to find the right fit model (Marcoulides & Drezner, 2001). The hypothesis model is provided in Figure 2.
H01a: Transformational leadership is not related to job satisfaction.
Ha1a: Transformational leadership is related to job satisfaction.
H01b: Transformational leadership is not related organizational commitment.
Ha1b: Transformational leadership is organizational commitment.
H02a: Transactional leadership is not related to job satisfaction.
Ha2a: Transactional leadership is related to job satisfaction.
H02b: Transactional leadership is not related to organizational commitment.
Ha2b: Transactional leadership is related to organizational commitment.
H03: The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment is not correlated.
Ha3: The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment is correlated.
H04a: Subordinate trust, is not related to transformational leadership behaviors.
Ha4a: Subordinate trust, is related to transformational leadership behaviors.
H04b: Subordinate trust, is not related to transactional leadership behaviors.
Ha4b: Subordinate trust, is related to transactional leadership behaviors.
H05a: Trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction.
Ha5a: Trust is a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction.
H05b: Trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment.
Ha5b: Trust is a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment.
H06a: Trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction.
Ha6a: Trust is a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction.
06b: Trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and organizational commitment.
Ha6b: Trust is a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and organizational commitment.
H07a: Trust is not related to job satisfaction.
Ha7a: Trust is related to job satisfaction.
H07b: Trust is not related to organizational commitment.
Ha7b: Trust is related to organizational commitment.
H08a: Subordinate turnover intention is not related to transformational leadership behaviors.
Ha8a: Subordinate turnover intention is related to transformational leadership behaviors.
H08b: Subordinate turnover intention is not related to transactional leadership behaviors.
Ha8b: Subordinate turnover intention is related to transactional leadership behaviors.
H09a: Subordinate turnover intention is not related to job satisfaction.
Ha9a: Subordinate turnover intention is related to job satisfaction.
H09b: Subordinate turnover intention is not related to organizational commitment.
Ha9b: Subordinate turnover intention is related to organizational commitment.
4.1 Sample Structure
A total of 147 of 150 respondents completed the information. Of the 147 participants, approximately 71% (105) were males and 29% (42) females. In addition 28% (41) completed leader questionnaire surveys and the remaining 72% (106) completed subordinate rater surveys. The average age of the participants in the sample was approximate 30 years old, and the average tenure in the organization was 5 years. Of those, about 5% (8) of the participants had only completed high school, 71% (104) had a college bachelor degree, and the remaining 24% (35) had a graduated degree. The demographics are provided in Table 8.
4.2 Data Analysis
4.2.1 The Hypothesized Model
The results of the AMOS 5.01 analysis in the hypothesized model with the Regression Weights for the variables investigated in this study are presented in Figure 3, Table 9, 10. The results of null hypothesis test are also presented in Table 9.
4.2.2 Correlations of the Variables
The correlation matrix for the observed variables investigated in this study is presented in Table 11 by SPSS 11 software.
4.2.3 Residual Covariances of the Variables
The differential that exists between the observed data and the hypothesized model is called Residual. Therefore, the Residual represents the discrepancy between the hypothesized model and the observed data. The Residual Covariance matrix is shown in Table 12.
Data = Model + Residual
Direct Effect, Indirect Effect and Total Effect of Latent Variables
The AMOS 5.01 can analyze both direct and indirect effects concurrently. Furthermore, latent variables are a hypothetical construct that can be derived from other observed variables in a complicated model. All effects of latent variables are shown in Table 13.
In this research, findings have confirmed that transactional leadership (r = .635) is more highly related to perceived job satisfaction than transformational leadership (r = .388) in the IT Department of Research and Development for the Shanghai region.
It was also found that transformational leadership has an indirectly effect on job satisfaction (r = .357) and organizational commitment (r = .388) via trust. Trust is an important mediator variable between leadership and outcomes.
Trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Concerning the relationship among transformational leadership, trust, and job satisfaction, the value that transformational leadership influences job satisfaction directly is .031, indirectly at .357. As the indirect effect is not zero, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternate hypothesis that trust is a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction is supported.
This finding indicates transformational leadership main effect is 92% in affecting job satisfaction via trust. Because the indirect effect is not zero, trust is a partial mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Although this leadership behavior does not directly impact subordinates’ job satisfaction, leader’s frequent empowerment and encouragement of followers to make their own decisions, builds followers' trust in their leader. The degree of loyalty that exists between a leader and a subordinate may transform into the momentum to complete the mission and receive job satisfaction. The total effect is .388, meaning that the transformational leadership style can influence job satisfaction of subordinates, and trust serves as an important role. This study found that transformational leadership style can result in the subordinates’ job satisfaction.
As for the relationship among transformational leadership, trust, and organizational commitment, the value that transformational leadership influences organizational commitment direct is .008 (see Table 13). Indirect effect is .388, and transformational leadership influences job satisfaction direct effects at .031. As the indirect effects passing the trust route is not zero, the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is support for the alternate hypothesis, meaning trust is a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment.
The findings indicate transformational leadership has a 98% effect on trust. As the direct effects is not zero (.008), the trust is a mediator between transformational leader and organizational commitment. Although this leadership behavior does not directly impact subordinates to organizational commitment, leaders frequently empower and encourage followers to make their own decisions, thus building followers' trust in their leader. The leader may build trust by demonstrating individualized concern and respect for followers. The degree of loyalty that exists between a leader and a subordinate may transform into the momentum to complete the mission, and obtain organizational commitment. The great majority of the indirect effects are from trust. Therefore, trust is a partial mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. This study found the total effect is .396, meaning the transformational leadership style can influence organizational commitment of subordinates, and trust serves an important role. The subordinate, after getting the commitment of the organization, will demonstrate high organizational performance.
Trust mediates the relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Concerning the relationship among transactional leadership, trust, and job satisfaction, the value that transactional leadership influences on job satisfaction, directly effects is .934, indirect effects is - .299, and the total effects is .635. Since the indirect effect is negative, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no support for the alternate hypothesis, and trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction.
The findings indicate transactional leadership has negative affects on trust. Because the indirect effects is less than zero, and the total effects is less than the direct effects, trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction. Transactional leaders rely on contingent rewards and on management-by-exception to reach short-term goals. The leader’s style represents behaviors such as monitoring performance, providing contingent personal rewards, and providing contingent material rewards as assignments are finished on time. Thus, job performance has a strong correlation with job satisfaction; the higher the performance, the higher the job satisfaction. In this research, transactional leadership has very strong direct effects on job satisfaction, as contrasted to indirect effects via trust, which is negative. Therefore, the trust between the leader and subordinate will be strengthened in the leader’s style.
As for the relationship among transformational leadership, trust, and organizational commitment, the value that transactional leadership influences on organizational commitment, the direct effect is .134 (see Table 13), indirect effects is -.128, and the total effects is .006. As the indirect effects are negative, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no support for the alternate hypothesis. Trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and organizational commitment.
The findings indicate transactional leadership negatively affects organizational commitment via trust and job satisfaction. Because the indirect effects are less than zero, and there is slight direct influence organizational commitment, trust is not a mediator in the relationship between transactional leadership and organizational commitment. In previous research, transactional leadership has no significant relationship to organizational commitment, but the contingent reward and management-by-exception are active and have a significant positive relationship with the affective, normative variables. Transactional leadership is significantly negatively related to trust (r = -.545, p < .05, two-tail), but contingent rewards (r = .311) and management-by-exception passive (r = .426) are associated with subordinates' trust in organizations.
The findings indicated that transformational leadership style could not directly affect turnover of subordinates, but there were indirect effects (-.380) and total effects (-.501) (see Table 13) on turnover. Therefore, this leadership style may negatively influence turnover via trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. In this research, all five factors of transformational leadership are significantly negatively related with turnover (r values range from -.183 to -.29, p < .05). This result shows that transformational leadership behavior is not associated with turnover in the IT Department of Research and Development in Shanghai. The findings of Hsu et al. (2003) are the same. But, there are many research studies that show that transformational leadership will affect subordinates’ intention to stay. Transformational leadership leaders can be trusted, are respected, demonstrate high ethical standards, as well as motivate and inspire followers. They create a vision for the future, and pay attention to the developmental needs of their followers and empower them. Therefore, transformational leadership is negatively related with subordinates’ turnover in the developed region. This is a result of the difference in the culture of Shanghai to that of the western world (Charlotte & David, 1997; Friedman, Langbert, & Giladi, 2000; Hsu et al, 2003; Julia, Natalie, & Tony, 2003).
Although transformational leadership has no direct effect on subordinate’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment (.031, .008), it has a significant indirect influence (.357, .388) through trust. Transformational leadership behavior is significantly positively related to trust (r = .652, p < .05, two-tail) and does not cause subordinate’s turnover (-.501). Second, transactional leadership style directly influences subordinate’s job satisfaction (r = .934, p < .05, two-tail), resulting in subordinate’s turnover intention (.654). The total effect is slightly related to organizational commitment (.008). Third, trust is a mediator between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The study found that trust also has a significantly positive relationship to subordinate’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment (.548, .585). Sufficient trust does not result in subordinate’s turnover (-.563). Fourth, subordinate’s job satisfaction is not associated with turnover (-.152). If the subordinate has a strong organizational commitment, trust will not cause subordinate’s turnover (r = -1.015, p < .05, two-tail).
The examined data were limited to employees from the Department of Research and Development. It is recommend that future research be collected and examined from different sources, such as the departments of financial, manufacture, marketing, education, military, public administration, and so forth. Observation of different regions or countries should be compared to each other to discover the differences between the different cultures and backgrounds, and to explore the suitability of this model. Further, it needs to be determined whether trust influences of subordinate's turnover should be studied. Transformational leadership is related to trust, both directly and indirectly, according to this study’s model. Finally, in the future, the differences of cultures should be examined as an influencing factor.
Adams, G. A., & Beehr, T. A. (1998).