AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER QUALITY OF

COMMUNICATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

by

Matthew Sheridan Lester

Tennessee Temple University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Tennessee Temple University

2014

ii

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER QUALITY OF

COMMUNICATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

by

Matthew Sheridan Lester

A Dissertation Presented in In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Tennessee Temple University, Chattanooga, TN

2014

APRROVED BY:

Dr. Chuck Morris, Ph.D., Committee Chair

Dr. Larry Standridge, Ph.D., Committee Member

Dr. Connie Mitchell, Ph.D., Committee Member

Dr. David Pitcher, Ph.D., Director of Leadership Program

iii

ABSTRACT

This quantitative research was a descriptive, statistical analysis that answered the

question: “How does authentic leadership practices and the leader’s quality of

communication relate to organizational commitment?” Data were collected from 299

employees from three organizations within the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. The

three organizations included a Public School (Alpha Organization), a Retail Business

(Beta Organization), and a Warehousing Company (Delta Organization). The research

applied three instruments: the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire, Organizational

Commitment Instrument, and the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire. The

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire was developed by Avolio, Gardner, and Walumbwa

(2007), to measure the authentic leadership practices of Transparency, Moral/Ethical

Conduct, Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness. The Organizational Commitment

Instrument developed by Cook and Wall (1980), measured three basic components of

organizational commitment: Identification, Involvement, and Loyalty. The researcher

collected data using Downs and Hazen’s (1977) Communication Satisfaction

Questionnaire, which measured the level of communication satisfaction rated by the

followers about the organization and leadership. The research applied four factors of

communication from the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire: Supervisor

Communication, Horizontal-Informal Communication, Communication Climate, and Top

Management Communication. The research collected data using a general demographic

profile. The original intent of this correlation study was to examine the statistically

significant relationship between the authentic leadership, the leader’s quality of

communication, and organizational commitment.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many deserve recognition for their support in the dissertation process. Foremost,

I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for His grace and mercy during this journey. I thank my

loving wife, Debra, and my children, Drew and Carson for their prayers, patience, and

encouragement throughout this process. I could not have completed the program without

my devoted wife and my two sons, whom I cherish for their endless encouragement and

strong love. There will be a significant increase in family fishing trips and many other

adventures when this process ends.

From the beginning, I owe my collegiate education to my loving parents, Larry

and Donna. Higher education has opened countless doors for our family.

I thank my committee chair, Dr. Chuck Morris, for his strong leadership and

unwavering guidance and to my two statisticians, Dr. Susan Twaddle for her professional

advice and sincere friendship. I thank Dr. Larry Standridge, who provided a wealth of

information and concern doing crucial moments of the process. Your advice and research

contributions were extensive and valuable. I thank Dr. Connie Mitchell for her insightful

leadership suggestions, friendship, and prayers.

My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Andrew Alexson and Trudy Owens for their

exemplary leadership and instruction over the past four years. The Tennessee Temple

University Leadership program has changed my life. I look forward to sharing leadership

lessons with others. Being connected to the faculty and staff of TTU has been a

humbling and rewarding experience.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABTRACT…………………………………………………………………………........ iii

Acknowledgements ………………………………………….………………… iv

List of Tables ………………………………………….………………………. viii

List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………….………… x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION …………….……………………………………..1

Research Background …………………………………………………………… 1

Problem Statement …..………………………………………………………..... 10

Research Purpose ………………………………………………………………. 11

Research Significance ………………………………………………………….. 12

Research Questions ...………………….……………………………………….. 13

Methodology ……………….…………………………………………………... 14

Dissertation Organization ……. ……………………………………………….. 15

Summary ……………………………………………………………………….. 15

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………. 17

Leadership ……………………………………………………………………… 17

Leadership Theories ……………………………………………………………. 22

Research Instruments ………..…………………………………………………. 29

Authentic Leadership Instrument …………………………………………..……29

Organization Commitment Instrument …………………………………….……32

Communication Satisfaction Instrument.…….…………………………………. 34

Leadership Impact ……………………………………………………..……….. 37

vi

Organizational Change Elements ………………………………………………. 46

Employee Engagement ………………………………………………………… 50

Literature Summary ...………………………………………………………….. 51

Summary ..................…………………………………………………………… 51

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS …………………………………………………….. 52

Research Population ………………………………………………………….…52

Data Collection ……………………………………………………………........ 52

Research Subjects ………………………………………………………….…... 53

Null Hypotheses .………......…………………………………………………... 54

Research Significance ………………………………………………………...... 57

Research Instruments ………………………………………………………….. 58

Data Analysis …………………………………………………………….…...... 63

Summary ...…………………..............…………………………………….…… 64

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ……………………………………………………….. 66

Data Collection ..……………………………………………………………….. 66

Descriptive Data ……......……………………………………………………… 67

Research Question One Analysis ………………………...……………………. 69

Research Question Two Analysis ……..………………………………………. 71

Research Question Three Analysis …….……...………………………………. 74

Other Finding ....................................................................................................... 77

Summary ……………………………………………………………………….. 78

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.80

Research Summary ...………….……………………………………………….. 80

vii

Research Conclusions ………………………………………………………….. 82

Further Research Recommendations .....……………………………………….. 87

Summary ...……………………………………………………………………... 88

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………….... 90

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Authentic Leadership Questionnaire ..….……………………… 116

Appendix B: Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire ………………........ 126

Appendix C: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire ............…………… 129

Appendix D: Demographic Questionnaire …………………………………… 131

Appendix E: Letter to Organizational Leaders .….…………………………... 133

Appendix F: Raw Data ……………………………………………………….. 134

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

4.1 Age, Gender, Marital Status, Educational Level, Worked Time, Summary..……… 68

4.2 Spearman’s Ranked Authentic Leadership/Communication Satisfaction/

Organizational Commitment – Identification Correlation Analyses …………... 70

4.3 Spearman’s Ranked Communication Satisfaction/Organizational Commitment –

Identification Correlation Analyses ...………………………………………….. 71

4.4 Spearman’s Ranked Authentic Leadership/ Organizational Commitment – Loyalty

Correlation Analyses … …………………………………………………………73

4.5 Spearman’s Ranked Communication Satisfaction Subscales/Organizational

Communication – Loyalty Subscale Correlation Analyses ……………………. 74

4.6 Spearman’s Ranked Authentic Leadership Subscales/ Communication Satisfaction –

Involvement Correlation Analyses ….…………………………………….…… 76

4.7 Spearman’s Ranked Communication Satisfaction Subscales/Organizational

Commitment Subscales Analyses ...……………………………………………. 77

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire – ALQ

Communication Satisfaction Audit – CSA

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire – CSQ

Leader-Member Exchange Theory - LMX

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - MLQ

Organizational Commitment Instrument – OCI

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire - OCQ

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background

“Leadership and learning were indispensable to each other.”

- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

The research question asked if there was a correlation between authentic leadership

practices, the leader’s communication quality, and organizational commitment. Chapter

one explored leadership perspectives, the problem statement, research purpose, research

significance, research questions, and research methodology.

Leadership Perspectives

Leadership was needed in all arenas from business to outlying communities.

Authentic leadership had been known to increase subordinate creativity and assisted with

competitive organizational challenges (Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Cunha, 2012).

Mentors, scholars, and business professionals became more conscience of leadership.

After studying cultural values and religious practices of 8th Century Buddhist

pilgrims in India, Korean Professor Yoon of Dongguk University explained that people

should be taught the “spirit of leadership” at an early age, to prepare for the challenges in

life (Yoon, 2011). Opinions were traded about how leadership was being used to

transform organizations. From a Christian perspective, Chung (2011) explained that

Jesus epitomized the practices of leadership as a servant leader. Likewise, Danny Morris,

a top leader in the United Methodist Church felt that the world needed leadership that

indicated spiritual health, moved by God, from the wealthy to the downtrodden (Myra &

Shelley, 2005). Professor Kreimer (2013) of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in

Wyncote, Pennsylvania organized retreats with Muslims and rabbinical college students

2

where leadership was a shared narrative of “immersed experiences” from both the Torah

and the Qur’an. Further, Ginsburg (2011) suggested that leadership could happen in

communities when people participated in service-learning projects. Leadership Fellow,

Cooper (2011) of Elon University in Greensboro, North Carolina reported that the world

needed more peacemakers, problem solvers, and consensus builders, who could learn the

process of leadership. Professor of Jewish Studies, Lewis (2006) reflected that the

traditional views about leadership and governance were historically divided and will

remain divided. A few cultures felt that leadership was not about service, it was more

about dominance and power. According to a leadership study by Professor Chris Hughes

of the London School of Economics and Political Science, China implemented a winner

takes all leadership approach with Japan (Hughes, 2008). Differing opinions existed

about what practices made organizations and communities more effective in leadership.

According to Goulet, Jefferson, and Szwed (2012) of the U.S. Coast Guard,

leadership included theoretical practices, such as time for mentoring, reflection, and

learning from the workmanship of others. If people aspired to learn more about

leadership, then they should explore the real-life perspectives of the business masters,

such as: Madeline Albright, Bill George, Larry Bossidy, Jack Welch, Gary Hamel, Tom

Peters, and Rudy Giuliani (Friedenburg, 2004). Regardless of the individual perspective,

leadership perplexed the thoughts and actions of global leaders, which made defining

leadership even more difficult.

Leadership Described and Defined

Hesburgh (1971) expressed that the mystique of leadership was impossible to

define. Leadership could not be defined in a word or even in a single sentence, but a

3

plethora of definitions existed (Johns & Moser, 1989). Bennis (1982) shared that the art

form of leadership had 350 definitions. Leadership should be defined as a social

construct, where teams worked together to solve organizational issues (Overton &

Burkhardt, 1999). Leadership remained a continuous topic of conversation (Bass, 1990).

Defining leadership was an endless task, but the majority of leaders sought to understand

more about the mystery of leadership.

People wanted to discover the essence behind managing others and what was at the

core of great leadership. The past century has produced various leadership theories, but

much has been absent in research about defining core processes that foster the authentic

approach to leadership (Avolio, 2005). Blunt (2003) expounded that leaders with

character had the ability to grow other leaders with noble qualities. Leadership expert,

John Maxwell (2013), stated that influencing others should be a person-by-person

approach. Forster (2007) of the University of Southern Mississippi described leadership,

as a proper alignment of people. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed that people were not

born with specific traits and behaviors, but they developed leadership traits over their

lifetime. Leaders were made not born, acquiring leadership qualities through learning

processes and through life’s progression (Avolio, 2005; Bush, 2009; Northouse, 2010).

Northouse (2010) believed that some people were born with great leadership traits, and

they gained additional traits through educational training and life experience. Schein

(2010) described leadership as too complicated. Bennis (1982) explained that leadership

was too traditional and narrow.

Overton and Burkhardt (1999) claimed that leadership should not be defined in

terms of traits but should be looked upon as the way a person thought about the issues in

4

a social environment. Each leader had a shared pattern of distinct practices that

surrounded their leadership style (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Leadership was buttressed in

wisdom, power distribution, and personal ethics. Bennis (1982) reported, regardless of

the thoughts that surrounded the goals of personal leadership, it was more about

advancing and protecting the welfare of others.

The majority of people believed that the leader relationship had changed from

quality outcomes, to multi-tasking, and onto task accomplishments, which was a gradual

emergence of commitment from younger leadership practices (Haeger & Lingham,

2013). Perhaps leadership was about the interactions of followers and humble service

(Kleinman, 2004; Blank, 1995; Drucker, 1996). Leadership placed subordinates on a

path of change for achievement, with power, perception, and organizational structure

(Burtis & Turman, 2010). Leadership was about the follower’s commitment; it pointed

followers in the desired direction for effectiveness and promoted channels of authentic

engagement.

Organizational Commitment Influenced

Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected that leadership was about getting followers to do

what the leader wanted done (Norris, 2011). Therefore, leadership was about the

reception of power distribution. Peter Drucker was convinced that leadership was less

about behaviors and traits and more about how a leader interacted with followers of the

organization (Kleinman, 2004). Both the public and private sectors viewed leadership as

the most desirable commodity in the workforce (Northouse, 2010). Leaders pointed their

attention more toward well-qualified followers who could strengthen the organization

through long-term commitment and consistent dedication.

5

From the 1960s to the early 1980s, organizational commitment was a major part of

leadership studies. Becker (1960) found that organizational commitment was more of an

exchange between the follower and the organization, using time, effort, and sharing

emotions for social reasons, psychological benefits, and economic issues of the company.

In the 1970s, workplace changes created conditions in which workers searched for

flexibility on-the-job, adjusting the work-life balance approach because of family

activities (Capelli, 1999). Stogdill (1974) offered that leadership differences played a

role in influencing and identifying organizational surroundings. Porter, Steers, Mowday

and Boulian (1974) were among the four original researchers concerned about the impact

of organizational commitment; they redefined organizational commitment in three

statements: (a) the follower believed in and accepted the values and goals of the

organization; (b) the follower exerted energy and cared about the organization; and (c)

the follower was a devoted organizational member.

After studying several hundred park rangers in Virginia, Shoemaker, Snizek, and

Bryant (1977) revealed that organizational commitment was related to age, level of

education, number of years on-the-job, and the number of career locations assigned.

Leaders exchanged thoughts about why only a few employees remained loyal to an

organization and why others decided to leave their job. Wiener (1982) explained

organizational commitment as being linked to the subjective norms of an employee’s

behavior and being associated with an employee’s internalized value system, which

pointed to the link between rewards and punishments.

Singh and Vinnicombe (2000) explained that being committed to an organization

was about availability, adding value to the company, and task delivery. Chang and Choi

6

(2007) offered that organizational commitment unfolded within the first fourteen months

of service, based on professional socialization and organizational retention. After

observing Spanish workers, Pous (2007) believed that organizational commitment was

more than just a salary exchanged for labor. Instead, it was related to identity,

networking for a better life, and having conjunctive ownership with daily assignments.

Dewan and Myatt (2008) suggested that organizational performance was based on the

core components of quality leadership that was coupled with quality communication.

Leaders wanted to explore new approaches to reducing organizational turnover, so more

time was needed to train staff members and recruit talented people to fill vacant positions

(Giffords, 2009). Keith, Hopp, Subramanian, Wiitala, and Lowery (2010) discovered

that employees offering a skillset and innovation exhibited factors directly targeting

organizational commitment. After studying how job satisfaction related to organizational

commitment, Rusu (2013) revealed that 1,500 teachers in Romania connected more with

affective organizational commitment over continuance organizational commitment and

normative organizational commitment. Xuelli, Lin, and Milan (2014) suggested that

leaders should be sensitive to followers, enabling them to understand more about the

meaning of their daily tasks. Leaders found that committed followers existed in all

generations and came from both genders, promoting workplace diversity with innovation

and employee engagement.

Leadership Diversity

The past few decades have produced new ideas about diversity in the workplace.

Both males and females had different perspectives about organizational commitment and

authentic leadership. Leaders depended on both genders to reach desired outcomes in

7

business; men and women were driven with talent and experience to build stronger

organizations and attractive communities. Historically, the effectiveness of an

organization was thought to be about having committed male leadership, standing in the

front of dedicated team members. Singh and Vinnicombe (2000) discovered that more

men used the term “commitment” to mean proactivity, innovation, task delivery, and

readiness. Balay and İpek (2010) found that it was not men who shared more

organizational commitment, but it was the women that offered greater support and

concern, especially in the role of educational leadership and organizational commitment.

Balay and İpek (2010) surveyed a small group of primary teachers and found that

organizational commitment perceptions were based on gender, teaching levels, marital

status, and the number of years teaching. On the other hand, Singh and Vinnicombe

(2000) found that women were less committed than men in the area of less visible

commitment, meaning that women exhibited less involvement, were less concerned about

people, and had limited availability than male co-workers. Maertz, Carl, Mosley, and

Alford (2002) found that employees who had a greater organizational commitment

developed long-term and valued relationships. Regardless of the gender, employees who

were married seemed to exert more energy and displayed more organizational

commitment than employees who claimed to be single (Balay & Ipek, 2010).

Lambert and Hogan (2010) identified three factors that seemed evident among

workers in a Midwest correctional facility about organizational commitment: job variety,

job autonomy, and personal characteristics. Because of conflicting research, leaders had

a desire to understand more about organizational commitment and how it related to

factors associated to job satisfaction. Liu and Wang (2013) found that social and

8

personal behavior was not about gender at all, but organizational commitment was more

about personal trust and perceived risk of employment. Few researchers examined how a

followers’ commitment was related to leadership communication.

Leadership Communication

Organizational “talk” should be of the highest ethical standards and shared with

authenticity, which was handed down from the ancient leaders and thinkers (Hassan &

Ahmed, 2011). The leader communicated the vision, shared persistence with members,

and created the social architecture of the entire business (Bennis, 1982). Leadership

communication with an employee was vital to reaching desired outcomes in performance

and organizational effectiveness. Covey (1989) claimed that “communication is the most

important skill in life” (Covey, 1989, p. 237). If business was about location, then

leadership had to be about communication. Bass (1999) expounded that there was a

significant need for understanding more about how the leadership communication process

influenced workplace behaviors and transformed the traits of followers. Communication

helped leaders occupy transitory roles with followers and contributed to the organization

through social structures and shared leadership (Tourish, 2014). Many people considered

communication as the most significant motivator in business transformation. The timing

of communication was vital to the function and performance of an organization. Hogard

and Ellis (2006), University of Chester, UK, stated that communication should be

considered and evaluated in every area of an organization, from the top to the bottom.

Rowe (2004) reported numerous ways that effective communication could occur between

leadership and membership. Porumbsecu, Park, and Oomsels (2013) found that

subordinates were influenced enough to alter their behavior when the leader’s quality of

9

communication was superior. Leaders that had credibility and merit communicated with

effectiveness, without it, followers were not influenced to perform daily tasks and meet

goals (Bennis, 1982). In addition, Dewan and Myatt (2008), Oxford University, located

in Oxford, UK, found that a leader, who communicated with clarity, had a greater impact

on followers than a leader who communicated with a sense of direction. Bither and

Gandhi (2011), Christian Dental School in Punjab, India, reported that patients were

more satisfied with the interpersonal behavior and communication among providers when

leaders were positive and upbeat. Dewan and Wyatt (2008) discovered that the quality of

a leader’s communication assisted in unifying commitment among followers when

leadership communication was optimistic. Moreover, optimistic communication linked

the organization to authentic leadership practices (Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke,

2011).

Organizations were built on sharing leadership practices, communicating

teamwork, and emphasizing discipline. From education to the healthcare industry,

communication satisfaction was the guiding force for effectiveness in a great number of

organizations. According to the article, The Magnetic Pull (2010), Martha Jefferson

Hospital and Jersey City Medical Center credited their five-star Consumer Reports

ratings to effective communication skills, self-governance, and the practice of autonomy.

While studying leadership in seventeen Scotland hospitals, Flin, Yule, McKenzie,

Paterson-Brown, and Maran (2006) of Edinburg University found that the quality of

leadership and communication were positively viewed among employees; it especially

impacted group direction and leadership excellence among surgical teams. Otherwise,

when quality communication and leadership were absent from the team, failure was

10

commonplace within the hospital. Likewise, Parrish (2007) added that quality

communication ensured quality services within their facility.

Tillman (2001) believed for transformational leadership to take place in the New

Millennium, leaders must adopt and implement a leadership practices credo through

having better communication skills and honoring empathy. Porumbsecu, et al. (2013)

stated that organizational strength and commitment was achieved when a leader

expressed interpersonal communication with subordinates, while building trust, shaping

influence, and strengthening relationships in a superior-subordinate communication

exchange. Crucial factors were associated with leadership, quality communication, and

organizational commitment, directing the research to the following statement.

Problem Statement

This research focused on authentic leadership practices and the leader’s

communication quality; it was significant to explore how these factors related to

organizational commitment among workers. Scholars suggested that the proponents of

authentic and transformational leadership practices were positively linked to individual

workplace attitudes and behaviors, which had the ability to alter organizational

commitment among direct reports (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Leaders were challenged when employees exited the

organization, having to reconsider leadership practices and uncover reasons why

employees were leaving the company. Was the leader’s quality of communication and

authentic leadership practices related to the organizational commitment of the former

employee? Communication satisfaction, authentic leadership practices, and

11

organizational commitment were concerns of followers and leaders that were pivotal

factors in examining organizational issues.

Research Purpose

The purpose of this research was to examine the linkage between authentic

leadership practices and the quality of the leader’s communication and how these two

factors impacted organizational commitment. Gaps in authentic leadership practices,

communication satisfaction, and organizational commitment deserved additional

research.

Since the 1990s, there has been a severe shortage of qualified workers and the

unstable labor market has caused workers to often change careers (Challenger, 2003). In

the 21st century, workers had several options when it came to serving an organization,

following leadership practices, and being committed to an organization. Organizational

practices and leadership communication caused leaders to reflect upon the issues that

surrounded employee retention and continuous recruitment. As a result, global leaders

faced the same scenario concerning follower commitment and leadership practices. Did

communication divide the membership and the leadership? Employees that were

dissatisfied with leadership practices and poor communication had the option to resign,

which heavily impacted the health and well-being of an organization.

From a leadership perspective, every worker had a significant role within the

organization and each employee assisted with guidance, which ultimately shaped the

function and direction of the organization. When an employee decided to quit the

organization, it was evident that valuable experience and crucial information left with the

employee. A number of questions seldom received an answer when an employee

12

resigned. Why did the employee have a lack of organizational commitment and what

pivotal factors made the employee decide to leave the organization for another employer?

What were the deciding factors that caused an employee to exit the organization? Could

a leader learn how to exhibit quality communication practices, in order to prevent high

levels of turnover and alter organizational commitment when authentic leadership

practices were adopted? Did leadership communication impact the employees’ thoughts

and emotions related to organizational commitment?

Leaders that communicated encouragement with their staff members discovered

that their employees exhibited higher job performance, made better decisions, and were

more concerned about problem-solving (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Therefore, leaders sought to learn more about authentic leadership practices, especially

exploring how these factors related to communication satisfaction and organizational

commitment.

Research Significance

This research attempted to measure the areas of relationship between authentic

leadership practices, communication satisfaction, and how these factors related to

organizational commitment. Leadership and communication heavily impacted the

actions of followers. The world has witnessed corporate scandals and unfair business

practices, where less leadership authenticity was evident in the workforce (Hassan &

Ahmed, 2011). Failures in leadership authenticity called for additional research. The

past two decades offered limited research in the areas of authentic leadership practices,

communication satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Leaders desired to learn

more about leadership practices; this research examined whether a relationship existed

13

between authentic leadership practices, the leader’s quality of communication and

organizational commitment. This research shared empirical data about significant

leadership, communication, and commitment subscales, leading to the following three

research questions:

Research Questions

Research Question 1: To what extent did the Authentic Leadership subscales and the

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower Organizational

Commitment – Identification?

Research Question 2: To what extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and the

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower Organizational

Commitment - Loyalty?

Research Question 3: To what extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to Organizational Commitment –

Involvement?

14

Research Methodology

The research employed Avolio, Gardner, and Walumbwa’s (2007) Authentic

Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), which assessed authentic leadership practices, from a

passive leadership style to a leader who was able to transform followers. The Authentic

Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) had four subscales: Transparency, Moral/Ethical,

Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness (see Appendix A).

A second instrument applied in this research was Cook and Wall’s (1980)

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), designed to assess the level of

organizational commitment among followers. The organizational commitment

instrument consisted of three subscales: Loyalty, Involvement, and Identification (see

Appendix C).

The third instrument was Downs and Hazen’s (1977) Communication Satisfaction

Questionnaire (CSQ) that assessed the level of communication perceived by followers

about their leader and the organization they served. This research concentrated on four

subscales from the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire: Horizontal-Informal

Communication, Communication Climate, Supervisory Communication, and Top

Management Communication (Downs, 1990) (see Appendix B).

The research employed a demographic profile that included age, gender, years

worked at the organization, educational level, and marital status. This research examined

if a significant relationship existed between a leader’s quality of communication, the

leader’s authentic leadership practices, and the organizational commitment of workers.

15

Dissertation Organization

The research was organized in five chapters. In Chapter one, the problem

statement, research questions, research significance, methodology and background were

provided.

Chapter two, the researcher provided the review of the literature, theories of

leadership, leadership communication, and authentic leadership practices related to the

followers’ organizational commitment.

Chapter three provided the research design and methodology, research questions,

hypotheses, survey information, data collection, and data analysis.

Chapter four provided the demographic findings collected from respondents,

descriptive statistics, correlation analysis findings, hypotheses analysis, and chapter

summary.

Chapter five summarized the dissertation, discussed the conclusions and

implications of the research, shared the limitations, and provided recommendations for

future research.

Summary

The research asked if there was a correlation between authentic leadership

practices, the leader’s communication quality, and organizational commitment.

Leadership was defined as a social construct, where teams worked together to solve

organizational issues. The past few decades have produced new ideas about diversity in

the workplace. Both males and females had different perspectives about organizational

commitment and authentic leadership. Communication satisfaction was the guiding force

16

for effectiveness in a great number of organizations. Organizational commitment was at

the helm of understanding how an employee felt about their leader.

The research was developed around three key questions: (a) To what extent did

the Authentic Leadership subscales and the Communication Satisfaction subscales relate

to follower Organizational Commitment – Identification? (b) To what extent did

Authentic Leadership subscales and the Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to

follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty? (c) To what extent did Authentic

Leadership subscales and Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to Organizational

Commitment – Involvement? Three instruments were administered in the collection of

data for the research including: Authentic Leadership Questionnaire, Communication

Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Organizational Commitment Instrument.

17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the scholarly literature from peer-reviewed journals and

dissertations related to authentic leadership practices, leadership communication quality,

and organizational commitment. This chapter explores major leadership theories and

addresses the methodology.

Leadership

Leadership History

Since the dawn of time, the dynamic process of leadership has been linked to

individual perspectives about survival, tribal warfare, communication, and group

interaction. Even the most primitive civilizations needed leadership, committed

followers, and adequate communication; without it, the structure of society would have

perished. Leadership was pinned to the early philosophy and governance of Aristotle

(Northouse, 2010). The largest and most influential civilizations, such as Babylon, Tyre,

and Rome eventually failed because of lack of leadership, poor communication, and

broken commitments. Leadership was not about the number of followers involved in the

establishment, but more importantly, it was about how an individual guided the group

(Mitchell, 2013). The challenge for many leaders was to continually improve upon the

practices of leadership and build lasting relationships for advancement (Morris, 2011).

From the beginning of civilization, survival required unselfish thought, unidirectional

authority and uncompromising leadership practices (McCrimmon, 1995; Rost, 1991;

Northouse, 2010). History has revealed that a group’s success pointed to the critical

element of following the leader (Barnard, 1938; Covey 1989). Leadership influenced

18

followers to meet common goals that expanded the direction and interaction of the group.

With leadership, it was imperative to control problematic issues and resolve conflicts as

soon as they happened. Leadership was the driving force behind failure and success for

every people group on the planet. Exemplary leadership and effective communication

elevated individuals above their peers, enabling them to gain rank and respect from

followers.

Each culture had different thoughts concerning the criteria necessary to lead a

pack effectively. A few superiors were ruthless in their approach to leadership, while

others were more calculated and concerned for the well-being of others. Historically,

men were trained for the title of leader and used power to control the movements of

others, but great leaders became effective by communicating the need for attracting larger

numbers of people and gained followership, such as Alexander the Great (Burton, 2013;

Dahlin, Danford, Hix, Riippa, & Riippa, 2004). Julius Cesar, on the other hand, pursued

knowledge and style in his leadership approach, while Jesus Christ came to spread the

message of serving others. Greenfield (2013) maintained that leadership or ‘Great

Leadership’ was about being invincible. Powerful leaders like Kublai Khan impacted

civilizations and caused leadership practices to change cultural and group perspectives

(Ferrante, 1994). Influential leaders like Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln, and Karl Marx

were thought to have power and strength (Kister, 1994).

Leadership was organized through governance and guidance, which led to the need

for support from community members. Therefore, group success targeted leadership that

was authentic, communication that was unwavering, and commitment that was

appreciated. Leadership was not just about an individual’s traits and competencies, but

19

more about enhancing the collective process of networks and relationships, which

advanced an organization as one powerful unit (Iles & Preece, 2006; Northouse, 2010).

Leadership, communication, and group commitment were challenges even for the most

influential leaders. Primal factors of leadership gained attention on a global level,

spreading an interest in understanding more about effective and authentic leadership

practices. Leaders needed committed followers to fulfill the mission of the organization,

but what happened when followers felt disconnected from the practices of a leader. The

commitment level of a follower was not just about leaving an organization or abandoning

the group; it was centered on specific reasons for disconnecting from the pack and the

leadership. Ineffective leadership and poor communication practices caused followers to

change organizations because of actions that were no longer tolerable. Leaders desired to

understand more about why skilled followers exited an organization, causing leaders to

further examine internal communication and develop new leadership practices.

Modern Leadership

During the Industrial Revolution, the function of staff and planned management

was introduced by Fayol (1916) that altered the level of structure and control of the

worker-supervisor relationship. Organizational planning trends changed the way people

considered the role of leadership and management (Fayol, 1916; Haeger & Lingham,

2013). Following World War I, Freud (1927) reflected that people needed a sense of

purpose and direction, which was only accomplished through leadership. People were

influenced by various types of leadership in their lifetime; in war, education, politics,

religion, and in the workplace. Much had been communicated in the depth and width of

20

leadership for both men and women in the 21st century, from amendments in voting and

household duties, and especially within the realm of organizational leadership.

After World War II, a few leaders pressed for changes in society concerning

equality, religious freedom, and global peace. The impact of war and leadership had

been felt around the world. The horrific acts on the Jewish people from the command of

Adolf Hitler and the German Army had initiated global changes in leadership ethics and

civil rights. Authentic leadership practices had been suspended for far too long. India,

America, South Africa, and many other countries developed new leadership approaches

to how people lived, worked, and communicated in society. A handful of leaders

launched campaigns for more authentic and ethical leadership practices. Mother Teresa,

Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent much of their

life communicating peace and equality for all people groups (Obama, 2013; Al Zayed,

2008). It was difficult to measure the significant global contributions of high capacity

leaders, but great leadership development was needed (Al Zayed, 2008).

In the 1960s, a movement occurred concerning participated leadership within

organizations, reducing power and status differences between leadership practices and

subordinate practices (as reported by Johns and Moser, 1989). While leadership basics

were useful for all people, not all leaders shared the same enthusiasm about equality.

Historically, the role of leadership had been marked with numerous limitations for

women and minorities who were unable to attain certain leadership roles (Lajimodiere,

2011). Leadership research existed concerning the extensive stereotypes of the “glass

ceiling phenomenon” of the 1970s that identified gender barriers within leadership

21

(Eagly, & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Killeen, Lopez-Zafra, & Eagly, 2006;

Yoder, 2001).

In the 1980s and 1990s, many leaders postulated that leadership was the engine of

the organization and that each person associated with the organization was considered a

leader (Bass, 2000). However, society witnessed the extreme behavior of leadership

practices and control, such as with David Koresh in Texas and Jim Jones in Guyana

(Northouse, 2010). By 2000, people raised awareness about ineffective leadership, which

pointed to government corruption, the environment, and the misuse of technology. A

decade later, leaders leaned on changing the behaviors and traits of workers with the

implementation of additional leadership programs and management training for

employees. Burns, Bingham, and Galagan (2010) reported that leadership was about the

development of competencies in all people, not just leaders at the top of the organization.

Leaders had expanded the idea of thinking “outside the box” or going beyond the comfort

zone of an individual to exhibit authentic leadership parameters in business, medicine,

and other areas. The past few decades produced a renewed interest in leadership hype

and heightened attention where organizations were merged, reshaped, or downsized;

people expected large-scale leadership changes to take place (Schruijer & Vansina,

2002).

The 21st Century leader considered global factors that impacted the success or

failure of a company. Organizations were focused on finding committed workers,

channels of communication, and leadership innovation. The advancement of an

organization highly depended on resolving internal commitment issues and reconnecting

leadership with followership. The purpose of this paper was to identify the statistical

22

significance of how authentic leadership and the leader’s quality of communication

related to organizational commitment.

Leadership Theories

A number of leadership theories were developed and redefined over the past few

decades to address various leadership styles that explained why leaders and employees

exhibited certain behaviors. Theories were at the core of understanding more about

leadership practices and workplace behaviors. Leadership influenced how direct reports

responded to communication, exposing personality traits from followers that assisted

with explaining various theories in leadership. Leadership contributed to every factor

within an organization (Kanste, Miettunen, & Kyngäs, 2007). Leaders identified and

examined various leadership styles and theories that linked colleagues, co-workers, and

management. Theory comprehension assisted leaders with overcoming challenges and

resolving conflicts that emerged in the workplace (Giltinane, 2013).

Johns and Moser (1989) stated that it was impossible for characteristics alone to

predict personality traits in leadership; early studies indicated that explaining morale and

relationships were unsuccessful in determining leadership potential. A dominant theme

existed that pointed to understanding the acts of leadership. According to Bryman

(1999), the past twenty years have produced new leadership approaches that targeted

theories, traits and styles, including charismatic, transformational, and visionary

leadership (Yukl, 1999; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001; Antonakis, Avolio, and

Sivasubramaniam, 2003).

Leadership was a complex topic that linked to organizations, employee behavior,

and communication exchange. Leadership had multiple layers and dimensions that

23

advanced people and products; it was the guiding force that moved an organization to the

next level in business. Over the past century a wide variety of leadership theories have

been developed and explained to examine guidance in education, superior industrial

communication, and organizational supervision. Having a strong interest in leadership

caused scholars and philosophers to uncover underlying issues within a number of

struggling organizations. Leaders asked why workers responded to authority in a

particular manner. Well-known leadership theories focused on organizational outcomes

and workplace behaviors that reflected upon the satisfaction of employees.

From complex business leadership to personnel issues, a large number of

supervisors sought to learn more about leadership theories, while hoping to seamlessly

transform their organization. For decades, researchers and scholars thought it was

necessary to define and redefine the multiple theories, organizational patterns and styles

that encompassed the role of leadership. The success of an organization depended highly

on adopting leadership theories and styles, which were known to impact an employee’s

behavior, satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Voon, Lo, Ngui, & Ayob, 2011).

Singer and Singer (1990), University of Canterbury, stated that leadership

theorists argued that the organizational setting, situational issues, and the company’s

climate were crucial determinants in identifying leadership traits and behaviors. This

research has identified primary leadership theories, which are as follows:

Authentic Leadership Theory

Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) suggested that authentic leadership differentiated

between pseudo and genuine transformational leadership. According to Wong and

Laschinger (2013) the root element of leadership effectiveness was found, when leaders

24

adopted authentic leadership practices. Schwartz (1992) described Authentic Leadership

Theory, as an element of motivational leadership, which dealt with the human value

system. The leader-follower relationship had high ethical standards linked to trust,

integrity, and included effective leadership practices that were built on healthy working

relationships associated with authentic leadership (Wong, Spence Laschinger, &

Cummings, 2010). Understanding influential power, commitment, and courage best

described the personal practices of the Authentic Leadership Theory (Branson, 2007).

According to Bera De Azevedo Sorbral and Gimba (2012) of Portugal, the Authentic

Leadership Theory was a recent theory that evolved because of corporate and

governmental scandals; it used a personal value system to evaluate behaviors and actions

of a specific leader. Self-awareness and self-regulation were vital mechanisms of the

Authentic Leadership Theory (Eid, Mearns, Larsson, Laberg, & Johnsen, 2012).

Democracy and public leadership were challenged to embrace the components of

authentic leadership practices; without it, effective leadership was unlikely to happen

within the public sphere (Kellis & Ran, 2013). Authentic Leadership Theory drew on life

experiences and psychological capabilities, such as self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and

optimism (Wong & Laschinger, 2013). For Bento and Ribeiro (2013) authentic

leadership was a style in which a leader shared honesty and sincerity and operated with

ethical and moral behavior.

Behavioral Leadership Theory

Blake and Mouton (1964) defined Behavioral Leadership as the survey: (a)

allowed the evaluation of and the importance of leadership capabilities, (b) designed to

enhance and improve upon the capabilities of managers, (c) strengthened the true

25

perception of a leader, (d) built upon efficient self-leadership, and (e) understood

leadership motivation and leadership engagement. Albino (2007) wrote that the Theory

of Behavioral Leadership was based primarily on how people learned and suggested that

leadership behaviors could be shaped by the principles derived from the science of

learning. Behavioral leadership suggested leaders were not born but were made for

leadership roles through training and development sessions (Norris, 2011).

Business Leadership Theory

Van Wart (2012) suggested that the Business Leadership Theory was: (a) the art of

leading followers, (b) a business of delegation and influence over others, and (c)

organizational encouragement and collaboration. The Business Leadership Theory was

built on partnerships and collaboration for business opportunities by implementing

complimentary usefulness in the labor market and within educational institutions

(Bennett & Thompson, 2011).

Contingency Leadership Theory

In 1967 Fiedler described the Contingency Leadership Theory, as what leaders

did in a particular situation or setting (Hunt, 1967). According to Fiedler, situations

determined what leaders did and what behaviors must be related to a specific situation;

especially when someone emerged from the pack in a time of need (Fairholm &

Fairholm, 2009). After examining human behavior within organizations, Hunt (1967)

described the Contingency Leadership Theory, as a leadership style impacting group

performance; it was essentially a leadership style that was least preferred by co-workers.

Educational Leadership Theory

26

According to Duigman (2003), the Theory of Educational Leadership was devised

by people responsible for optimizing learning opportunities and creating organizational

learning situations that were authentic, motivational, and strategic. Morrison (2013)

believed that the Educational Leadership Theory was an element of change among

administrators, who examined the ability or inability to practice leadership and

management within an educational setting. Mutual respect, collective action, and cross-

cultural transferability were vital practices that underpinned the Educational Leadership

Theory, which made it a practice of parallel leadership (Goh, 2009).

Ethical Leadership Theory

The Ethical Leadership Theory was described as knowing the core values and

having the courage to live out those core values at home and in the workplace (Center for

Ethical Leadership, 2014). The Ethical Leadership Theory was about leaders who

offered ideas and organizational planning with moral legitimacy (Mendoca, 2001).

Trevino, Brown, and Hartman (2003) shared seven characteristics of an ethical leader:

(a) an outward oriented person that sought to develop followers; (b) one who shared

exceptional conduct and high visibility; (c) one who was a good listener and an excellent

communicator; (d) one who had standards of self-leadership with others; (e) one who was

accountable for his/her actions; (f) one who made good group decisions; and (g) one who

understood the ethical issues, such as leading for the common good of the group.

Great Man Theory

The most adequate leader or the best all-around performer was without a doubt

considered to be the “great man” of the group (Borgatta, Bales, & Couch, 1954).

Historically, the “great man” has been the one person within the group that stood out

27

among the rest, who shared exceptional organizational performance and was elevated to

the top position of the team (Borgatta, et al., 1954). According to Wesley (1965), the

“great man” was an individual that controlled his abilities and endeavors, even his

character and influence became greater with the passing of time. People were educable

and could be nurtured and taught the philosophy of leadership, making them great men

and women of society (Organ, 1996).

Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)

Perkins (2013) explained that the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) was

designed to measure membership and followership outcomes, focusing on the leader-

follower process of relationship building without looking at the completion of tasks. The

LMX also focused on the completion of on-the-job assignments. The LMX related to the

overall quality of information communicated between a person in-charge and a

subordinate, linking the team with trust, respect, support, mutual influence, and rewards

(Chernyak-Hai, & Tziner, 2014). The LMX Theory was a relationship built between an

organization, a supervisor, and subordinate staff members that involved rapport,

response, and organizational outcomes (Horan, Chory, Carton, Miller, & Raposo, 2013).

Path-Goal Leadership Theory

The Path-Goal Theory was comprised of an employee’s pursuit of contingent

rewards in order to induce organizational or individual performance (House, 1971;

Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2008). The Path-Goal Theory defined the relationship

between leadership behavior and direct reports or subordinate job performance and

workplace attitudes (Downey, Sheridan, & Slocum, 1976). The Path-Goal Theory

pointed to the motivational behavior and functions of the leader: One having a causal

28

relationship between leadership behavior and the direct reports workplace attitudes and

their job performance (Downey, et al., 1976).

Servant Leadership Theory

According to Greenleaf (1977) the Servant Leadership Theory was the context

related to being helpful, being altruistic, and serving another individual or an organization

(reported by Ruíz, Martínez, & Rodrigo, 2010). Bole (1994) offered the same constructs

about the Servant Leadership Theory, who stood on the premise that stewards served an

organization and leaders controlled an organization. Servant Leadership Theory was

about leadership trust and support of leadership, which greatly influenced the job

satisfaction of workers (Chung, Chan Su, Kyle, & Petrick, 2010). Servant Leadership

was composed of eight dimensions: humility, authenticity, courage, stewardship,

standing back, empowerment, accountability, and forgiveness (Dierendonck, & Nuijten,

2011).

Situational Leadership Theory

Ogbeide (2011) described Situational Leadership, as a style of leadership that

investigated the effect, whether it led to being supportive, directive, participative, and/or

achievement oriented, on direct reports and their motivation for effectiveness.

Trait Leadership Theory

Trait-Based Leadership theories were linked to behavior, task/relationship

orientations, emotionality maturity, charisma, and personality (Strang, 2007). Effective

leaders exhibited traits and skills that reflected their organization, academic setting, and

professional style of management. After studying 250 world leaders, Hermann (1983)

29

pointed to seven characteristics/traits of the Trait Leadership Theory: self-confidence,

distrust of others, complexity, power, control, ethnocentrism, and interpersonal emphasis.

Cottam and Preston (2007) claimed that the Trait Leadership factor connected to a

leader’s sensitivity that made a difference in the speed of decision-making, risk

assessment, and the ability to decipher information.

Transformational Leadership Theory

Bass (1990) pointed to four factors of Transformation Leadership: idealized

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration. Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, and Hardy (2009) found that leadership

that transformed followers had an effect on team processes and organizational outcomes.

Research Instruments

Leadership Instrument

Within this study, the research has employed the Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire (ALQ), which included four subscales. The research found that the ALQ

was an additional study created by Avolio, et al., (2007), having been tested across the

globe. Here, the research described the four ALQ subscales (Avolio, et al., 2007;

Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). The following four

dimensions describe the ALQ:

1. Self-Awareness was the leader’s awareness of his/her own strengths and

limitations, along with how leadership practices impacted an employee’s perception of

their leader.

2. Balanced Processing was the leader’s ability to solicit sufficient viewpoints

prior to the decision-making process.

30

3. Moral/Ethical was about how the leader would set high standards for moral-

ethical conduct within the organization.

4. Transparency was how the leader reinforced openness and encouraged

employees to share their work challenges, opinions, and ideas with the rest of the group.

Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman (1997) surveyed seven hundred employees

from eight different organizations and each participant rated their leader's behavior by

responding to the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

Bass and Avolio found three styles of leadership, transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire could be discovered through the application of the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ), but the results were somewhat different than what had been

unfolded by Bass (Hartog, et al., 1997). According to Hartog, et al., (1997) the scales

were altered on empirical and theoretical grounds when transactional and laissez-faire

leadership styles were focused upon.

Burns (1978) developed a Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT), using the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which identified five transformational leadership

elements, three transactional elements, and one non-leadership element (Avolio &

Yammarino, 2002; MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio, 2000). The MLQ has been used for over

two decades to understand more about transformational leadership practices. Doherty

(1997) surveyed thirty-two inter-varsity athletic administrators, who were rated by 114

coaches in research using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), revealing

that female and younger administrators exhibited transformational leadership behavior

and transactional leadership behavior that were less often than their male counterparts.

31

When it came to a coaches’ perception of leader effectiveness and the frequency of extra

effort, the study revealed that age and gender were also associated (Doherty, 1997).

How an organization functioned in the labor force helped explain the culture,

complexities, and leadership direction. According to the research of Singer and Singer

(1990) from the University of Canterbury, the area of transactional behavior comprised

two leadership factors, Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception in a series of

leadership studies based on Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire validation. Bass and

Avolio (2000) found that subordinates’ satisfaction and effectiveness ratings exhibited

higher correlations with leadership transformational behavior ratings over the behaviors

of transactional behavior.

In a leadership and communication study from France and Italy, concerning a

random sample of 395 nurses, Portoghese, Galletta, Battistelli, Saiani, Penna, and

Allegrine (2012) implied that the strategies of nursing management promoted

organizational commitment to change, including developing positive expectations about

overall organizational change outcomes, along with building high-quality leadership

styles that linked to positive leadership communication.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) designed by Bass and Avolio

(1990) had overlapping factors with the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ). The

past decade has seen an increase in authentic leadership research (Gardner, Cogliser,

Davis, & Dickens, 2011). The ALQ was designed by Avolio, Gardner, and Walumbwa

(2007), to measure the Authentic Leadership practices of Transparency, Moral/Ethical

Conduct, Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness. Walumbwa, et al., (2008) validated

the ALQ, providing both discriminate and convergent validity. The ALQ has been

32

sampled and supported in the Malaysia, China, Kenya, and in the United States

(Walumbwa, et al., 2008; Hassan & Ahmed, 2011).

After studying 395 bankers in Malaysia, Hassan and Ahmed (2011) found that the

ALQ was a reliable instrument. Hassan and Ahmed (2011) reported that the higher the

leadership authenticity was among leaders the higher positive attitudes that the bankers

had in the workplace. However, Neider and Schriesheim (2011) reported having

concerns about the validity of the ALQ.

Organizational Commitment Instrument

Larger organizations had a personnel department that dealt with the specific duties

tailored to the area of human resource management and personnel satisfaction.

Organizational commitment focused on how employees’ felt about the way they were

being managed and guided, while serving the organization. Personnel issues affiliated

with organizational commitment were directly linked to leadership practices, involving

communication satisfaction and human resource management issues, which impacted the

daily concerns of leaders.

Small and large organizations crumbled by the wayside, not having the ability to

retain committed and talented employees. Weak organizations relied on structure and

commitment, not being able to reach their highest level of business service and costing

the organization additional time and money. Often, the emotions and feelings of

employees were negative, as they felt unappreciated at work, causing workers to apply

for positions at other organizations. Organizational commitment was satisfactory for a

few employees and leaders, even causing an organization to double or triple in size. For

the sake of an organization and not just for instrumental value, employees were

33

committed to doing their personal best each day, as they exhibited involvement, shared

loyalty, and even identified with their daily workload (Cook & Wall, 1980).

Mathews and Shepherd (2002) suggested that organizational commitment from a

human resource perspective went beyond the traditional aspect of personnel management;

it pointed toward the beliefs of an employee and focused on an employee’s commitment

level, shared trust related issues, and expressed the internal organizational culture.

Scholars and researchers alike were interested in understanding why an employee felt

compelled to stay with an organization or felt compelled to find another employer.

Commitment was what an employee believed on the inside about an organization and

what shaped their thoughts and feelings in an internalized belief system (Matthews &

Shepherd, 2002).

Bateman and Strasser (1984) found the factors that shaped an employee’s

commitment level were connected to personal characteristics, such as behaviors and job

duties. These factors connected to an employee’s attitudinal, affective, and cognitive

constructs, which were also connected to satisfactory employment. Egriboyun (2014) of

Turkey, after studying 601 administrators, and teachers found that organizational

commitment was achieved, when strong support was given to employees from top

educational leaders.

Cook and Wall (1980) researched leadership and commitment, even developing

an assessment tool to measure organizational commitment. The Organizational

Commitment Instrument (OCI) and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

(OCQ) assessed three main areas of organizational commitment: Identification, Loyalty,

and Involvement. Peccei and Guest (1993) were involved with organizational

34

commitment in the UK, with specific efforts on the British Organizational Commitment

Questionnaire Scale, later known as the Organizational Commitment Instrument or the

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, which was redeveloped by Cook and Wall in

1980 (as reported Mathews & Shepherd, 2002).

After studying the Commitment-Trust Theory, Morgan and Hunt (1994)

supported a partially mediated model with direct constituent commitment effects on

turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behaviors which were consistent with

Becker (1992). Sallan, Simo, Fernandez, and Enache (2010) suggested that human

resource managers should foster organizational leadership, developing and promoting

affective and continuance organizational commitment among all employees. This

research focused on the components of organizational commitment developed by Cook

and Wall, which included the following: Identification, Involvement, and Loyalty (Cook

& Wall, 1980).

Communication Satisfaction Instrument

The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) was developed by Downs

and Hazen (1977) and was revised by Downs (1990) from 50 to 20 items. The

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire was originally designed with 35 items, the

first three items were related to job satisfaction, whether an employee’s job satisfaction

had decreased, increased, or remained the same. Redding (1978) suggested

communication satisfaction was the “over all degree of satisfaction an employee

perceived in his total communication environment” (p. 429).

The original Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire had multiple subscales

within the survey. For example, items 4 to 38 were related to employee satisfaction.

35

Items 39 and 40 were concerned with productivity. The end product variables were items

1, 2, 39, and 40. CSQ items 42 to 46 dealt with the satisfaction of the supervisors’

communication. Items 3 and 41 were open-ended items. Downs and Hazen (1977)

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire included Organizational Perspective, Personal

Feedback, and Organizational Integration, Supervisor Communication, Communication

Climate, Horizontal-Informal Communication, Media Quality, and Subordinate

Communication subscales. The original Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire or

the Communication Audit Questionnaire was revised in 1990, which assessed the level of

respondent satisfaction in a fifty-item instrument with Likert type scale ranging from 1

“very dissatisfied” to 7 “very satisfied” (Downs, 1990).

This research used twenty-items from the revised Communication Satisfaction

Questionnaire, developed by Downs (1990), which assessed participant’s satisfaction of a

leader’s communication. The item rating range of the questionnaire was from 1 “very

dissatisfied” to 7 “very satisfied”.

A number of researchers supported the validity and reliability of the

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire Instrument (CSQ) (Downs & Hazen, 1977;

Downs, 1990; Crino & White, 1981; Greenbaum, Clampitt, & Willihnganz, 1988). The

CSQ has been used in the United States, Mexico, Nigeria, Australia, and Guatemala

(Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 2004). The CSQ was commonly used in dissertations

across the globe, having been translated into German, Turkish, Spanish, Dutch, Japanese,

and Chinese (Rubin, et al., 2004).

Here, the research adapted the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire, using

four of the ten subscales to rate the satisfaction level of job communication of a

36

respondent. The four subscales used in this research were: Supervisory Communication,

Horizontal-Informal Communication, Communication Climate, and Top Management

Communication.

The ten original Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire subscales were

described by Downs and Hazen (1977) and Downs (1990), as follows:

1. Organizational Perspective included the financial standing, notifications on

organizational changes, goals, and policies.

2. Personal Feedback judged the employees, offered information on individual

appraisals and the performance of the overall group of employees.

3. Organizational Integration was how workers received information from their

immediate environment. The subscales encompassed the degree of employee job

satisfaction about departmental planning, job requirements, and personnel information.

4. Supervisory Communication dealt with: (a) the upward and downward levels

of communication within the organization, (b) communication about ideas and plans, (c)

how supervisors paid attention and listened to employees, and (d) the extent to which job-

related problems were guided by leadership.

5. Communication Climate related to personal and organizational levels of

communication. These items were concerned about the factors that surrounded

Organizational Communication, such as (a) the extent to which communication

motivated and stimulated employees to meet certain goals, (b) the extent to which

communication climate identified with the organization, and (c) the extent to which an

employee’s attitude reflected a healthy communication climate.

37

6. Horizontal-Informal Communication was concerned with free flowing,

accurate informal and horizontal communication that linked associates to grapevine

communication.

7. Media Quality dealt with the extent to which the directives were correct, well-

written, and organized, which related to clear and short aspects of communication.

8. Subordinate Communication dealt with subordinate communication that was

upward and downward. Subordinate Communication was geared more toward the

supervisory role, dealing with the responsiveness to downward communication, and the

extent of upward communication.

9. Top Management Communication was how employees evaluated leadership

communication within the organization, pointing to whether or not the top leaders

exhibited care, shared vital news, and listened to the ideas of followers.

10. Interdepartmental Communication focused on communication with

organizational departments about the efficiency of each department. This subscale was

linked to management communications, teamwork and group problem-solving.

Leadership Impact

Leaders explored the dynamics of keeping subordinates satisfied and connected to

the organization, while discovering new approaches to keep associates and customers

served. Leaders had to weigh the cost of organizational turnover and consider leadership

issues, customer satisfaction, and employee retention. Employee retention concerned a

great number of leaders and human resource managers. An effective leader examined

external and internal forces and adjusted accordingly.

38

Leaders across the globe pondered how to retain talented and dynamic employees,

while looking to improve the culture and performance of the organization. Leaders

desired to know what cultural concepts made a difference in retaining valuable

employees, especially in the areas of organizational commitment, communication

satisfaction, and authentic leadership practices. Organizations that lost valuable

employees to competitors witnessed a weakness in team leadership practices. When top

performers exited the company because of globalization and job switching, major

changes were often considered too late and reactive. Leadership teams considered

reframing and reassessing the organization for change management and succession

planning. For example, leaders had to develop new approaches to retaining talented

employees, addressing the long-term quality and production of what had taken place

within the organization. Aside from the daily business practices, leaders dealt with

people, planning, and operational issues.

Sheridan (1992) of the University of Alabama-Birmingham maintained that

organizations must learn to control employee turnover by implementing job enrichment

programs, realistic job previews, and offering new approaches to retain strong talent.

Research suggested that leaders should study the labor market and demographic

conditions, looking for news formulas to remain competitive. Leaders were examining

why talented employees and top performers left the organization for another company.

Deep concerns and harmful constructs existed for leaders when the infrastructure and

human capital joined the other team, causing unwanted actions and organizational

realignment challenges.

39

Madsen, Mosakowski and Zaheer (2003) studied how the dispersion of

organizational change in personnel behavior had the power to preserve and protect the

company, overlapping in knowledge, building stock, and transforming group outcomes.

Leaders realized that unwanted barriers caused by the inflow and outflow of personnel

changes had altered the process and future of the organization (Madsen, et al., 2003).

Shea, Jacobs, Esserman, Bruce, and Weiner (2014) felt that leaders and managers should

be ready to guide the organization with new practices, offering a more attractive

environment and worthwhile programs for workers.

The global market place was competitive, as employees balanced their private life

with the vigorous demands of working long hours, addressing social changes, and

meeting organizational needs each week. Kar and Misra (2013) researched workplace

behaviors and offered that organizational leaders must create channels of positive support

within the culture of the organization. Leadership that supported workers could expect to

retain more employees and offer a business environment that included the ability for

workers to balance their workload, along with honoring ample family time. Research

examined that the work-life balance approach of supportive organizational cultures

mediated organizational performance (Kar & Misra, 2013). The challenges between an

employee’s career and home-life impacted how an employee viewed their job situation

and career satisfaction. Employment practices and home-life balance were major

concerns for thousands of employees and leaders across the globe. Kar and Misra (2013)

suggested leaders that faced employee turnover and poor performance could adopt a new

organizational culture: One where the leadership understood the employee’s home-life

40

and career concerns. Leaders that honored an employee’s work-life balance impacted

their morale and labor performance.

Ghorbanhosseini (2013), Department of Management at Islamic Azad University

in Saveh, Iran, found after studying 266 industrial workers that organizational

commitment impacted teamwork, development, and operational culture. Regardless of

the industry, leaders had a choice about workplace management, operating with the same

leadership practices, and adjusting the cultural and environmental dynamics of the

company. Organizational culture impacted the leader-member roles of employee

retention.

Major changes in the workplace and perceptions of uncertainty were topics of

concern for global leaders and scholars alike. According to Jungsik of Kwagwoon

University, Song of Hanyang University, and Seongsoo of Sun Moon University, the trio

studied Korean firms and found that organizational changes and employee identification

mediated perceptions of uncertainty (Jungsik, Song, & Seongsoo, 2013). Kim and Park

(2008), University of Queensland, reported that major changes of pace and scope within

an organization caused employees to become frustrated, having feelings and emotions

related to job uncertainty.

Leadership practices impacted organizational commitment. Leaders faced

challenges about how to gain an edge in the business world, while workers looked to

increase their annual income. Factors like employee retention, globalization, and job

switching kept leaders in short supply of talented workers. Common issues of task

disengagement and job dissatisfaction were global leadership issues. As a result, workers

felt the need to join other organizations, because of dissatisfaction with leadership

41

practices and poor communication that had become accepted constructs for leaders.

Communication factors impacted the commitment level of workers across the globe.

Leaders were faced with the daunting task of transforming an organization,

keeping valuable workers satisfied, and networking with clients. Globalization offered

workers new opportunities for employment that had never previously been available

within the workforce. Leaders needed new plans to attract, reach, and keep valuable

employees, by offering sign-on bonuses and employment perks. Strategic planning for

personnel engagement and retention became complicated for leaders, where job

switching impacted the entire culture and health of the organization.

Zhou and Sun (2010), Sun Yat-Sin University in China, maintained that extensive

job switching, and personnel turnover highly impacted the bottom line of any size

organization. Job switching was the ultimate way that employees expressed personal

views and pursued a new era of self-realization. With global business developments on

the raise, dissatisfied workers had new opportunities at other organizations, moving from

a company with poor leadership to one with better working conditions and satisfactory

practices.

In a competitive marketplace, when jobs were plentiful, it was common for

workers to use their talents to pursue employment through job switching, allowing the

person to alter their job duties by joining another organization (Rifkin, 1998). Switching

jobs was beneficial for employees but the negative impact of organizational turnover

challenged struggling businesses with poor leadership. As a result, leaders had to

continually train new employees and created attractive business plans, without surveying

why former employees had left the organization. Businesswomen and CEO of Mercer,

42

Michelle Burns, reflected that the best formula to rebound in business was to add

innovative leadership that pointed to a learning organization (Burns, Bingham, &

Galagan, 2010).

Challenger (1993), Chicago, Illinois, claimed that job switching for females could

be a mistake and switching industries was an even greater mistake; however, many

opportunities were available in the marketplace for risk-takers. Regardless of the

organization or occupation, workers were searching for a better life and favorable work

conditions, longing to reach an acceptable balance between their professional career and

their home life.

As a result of severe turnover and changes in the labor market, leaders

implemented internal training programs and continually hired managers from outside the

organization (Melling, 1988; Challenger, 2003). Improvements in the U.S. economy and

changes in the marketplace caused more workers to reevaluate their options for a better

life and career. Needleman (2008) reflected in the Wall Street Journal that job switching

was a risky move for middle managers. Job switching was a smooth transition for the

average worker, but a well-qualified candidate gathered sufficient data about potential

employers (Needleman, 2008). Significant factors in leadership impacted organizational

turnover, so leaders tried to resolve the problematic issues, without addressing the

reasons behind why the employee left the organization in the first place. Leaders that

dismissed poor communication factors and high turnover were faced with internal and

external forces related to the economy.

Globalization impacted leadership and commitment. Globalization was an

ideological, social, biological force that impacted the process of health care, food, and the

43

world’s overall economy (Bogin, Azcorra, Wilson, Vázquez-Vázquez, Avila-Escalante,

Castillo-Burguete, & Dickinson, 2014). As organizations broadened their territory

through globalization and new leadership practices; it was obvious that crossing borders

increased logistical supply and demands, creating employment across the globe. As a

result, leaders were interested in hiring additional skilled laborers from other countries to

meet customer demands and daily orders. Leaders that met the organizational demands

and changed their business practices increased profit margins and served customers. The

idea of globalization was farfetched a half century ago, but globalization and authentic

practices seemed to be the wave of the future for many organizations that looked to adopt

new leadership and communication approaches.

Alsaeedi and Male (2013), Kuwait, found that the behaviors and attitudes of many

educational leaders supported globalization and transformational leadership practices,

pointing to the acceptance of diversity and multicultural inclusion. As organizations

ventured into the global network, workers supported business advancements and cultural

diversity. International trade and competitive commerce had changed the global

economy; it was evident that different styles of transformational leadership practices had

emerged in the process (Alsaeedi & Male, 2013).

In a leadership conference in Detroit, Michigan, the Chief Executive

Officer of SPX, Kearney (2009) made an appeal to business leaders that the act of

globalization and leadership was the American way. The process of globalization had

crossed cultural boundaries that connected political and economic sectors in places like

Southeast Asia and the Orient, reaching underdeveloped countries with economic power

44

and new ideas for networking organizational leadership (Shatkin, 2004). Globalization

impacted large and small communities and even reshaped world cultures.

South African researchers, Massamba, Kariuki, and Ndegwa (2004), stated that

leaders of the post-apartheid globalization efforts had often opposed the globalization

movement because of negative implications. Many leaders became frustrated with rapid

changes in transformational leadership practices and the factors associated with

socioeconomics. However, new partnerships had emerged over the past two decades that

strengthened economic growth in South Africa, which created networking opportunities

for international trade (Massamba, et al., 2004). Globalization was not always a

favorable concept for leaders. Elmawazini, Sharif, Manga, and Drucker (2013), claimed

that globalization widened the gap of inequality within many countries.

American business leaders expanded to global markets in hopes of adding a

broader customer base and additional workers. On the other hand, foreign organizations

increased shipments and built establishments within the United States that impacted the

options and commitment of American workers. Globalization had made great strides on

American soil in terms of job growth and business opportunities for the average

American worker. The globalization movement built a stronger infrastructure and

sustained the American manufacturing industry. Globalization was no longer an option,

but a necessity (Purdum, 2005). To offset the effects of globalization and job switching,

American leaders felt compelled to alter their traditional value system and focused more

on employee retention.

Employee retention impacted leadership and commitment. Within every

organization there were tasks that had to be completed each day and deadlines that had to

45

be met by team members. Strategic information was only privy to a select group of

managers and top leadership. It was essential for leaders to retain talented employees,

especially top performers, within an organization to handle such monumental tasks. How

did an organization retain vital talent and simultaneously maintain progress? With a

strong economy leader looked at workers as expendable. When larger markets moved

into America, leaders became subject to their own poor leadership practices and

organizational downfalls. Employee retention was a long-standing topic that needed to

be addressed on a global level with joint learning and evidence-based policies, especially

in the field of health care (Buchan, Couper, Viroj, Khampasong, Jaskiewicz, Perfilieva, &

Dolea, 2013). Davis (2013) found that two central themes were apparent at the

conclusion of studying customer service agents, which pointed to the need for increased

employee compensation and increased organizational morale.

What factors were pivotal for leaders to convince workers to remain loyal and

committed to an organization? Was having a desire to change leadership practices

significant enough for retaining employees and attracting new talent, especially where

organizational succession was concerned?

Davis (2013) suggested two significant factors that were paramount in

understanding employee retention, pointing toward the elements of employee

compensation and developing new organizational strategies. Leaders considered how

changing employee compensation and organizational strategies altered the effectiveness

of an organization. Two factors that produced higher morale within any organization,

while impacting the organizational commitment level of workers were compensation and

organizational strategies (David, 2013). Jain (2013) found that turnover was a

46

problematic issue in workplace effectiveness and employee branding. Turnover centered

on the overall satisfaction and happiness of an employee. An employee that was unhappy

at work and had witnessed poor leadership practices generally exited an organization.

Leaders had to rebuild core components, restructure the business plan, and rethink

the workforce during a subpar economy or a transitional period. When the economy

improved, and companies began to rehire workers, the disengaged and underappreciated

workers would consider leaving the company, causing an interruption in the operational

system (McKeown, 2010).

Jain (2013) wrote that the proponents of organizational effectiveness pointed to

communication satisfaction, as a primary function of leadership, which empowered

workers to act and caused employees to advocate for the brand. For a business to be

effective in the global marketplace, a pivotal factor was promoting the business and

keeping turnover at a minimum.

In occupational therapy and physiotherapy in rural Canada in a 30-year research,

Roots and Li (2013) found that employee retention had to do with opportunities for

personal growth, but the primary influence was organizational support from leadership

that recruited qualified candidates. Since researchers had differing perspectives about

employee retention and turnover, it was time for leaders to consider organizational

change and how it altered business and leadership practices.

Organizational Change Elements

Ruggeri and Abbate (2013) suggested that leadership involved self-sacrifice and

impacted team identification; leaders transformed groups directly through fostering team

cohesiveness and promoting goal attainment. The Ohio State University College of

47

Pharmacy defined organizational change, as a new vision and realigned strategies

directed toward organizational objectives (Nahata, Kelley, McAuley, Bennett, Carnes,

Casper, & Massaro, 2010). Peter Drucker taught that for transformational change to take

place within an organization that the leadership could no longer simply be there, but the

leader needed to build lasting community relationships and establish partnerships with

other institutions (Overton & Burkhardt, 1999).

Maxwell (2013) stated that transformational change occurred during times of

constant growth. Before a leader could transform an organization, the organization must

be committed to transparent leadership, where the company was seen publicly from all

sides (Burns, Bingham, & Galaga, 2010). Without transparent leadership in place, it was

difficult for leaders to attract followers and change the dynamics of the organization.

Grunes, Gudmundsson, and Irmer (2014) claimed that educational institutions

discovered that transformational leadership practices produced positive outcomes, which

encouraged exploration of leadership styles that transformed organizations. From

education to the health care industry change factors assisted organizational leaders, who

needed to carve out a new business model for efficiency and effectiveness. Leaders that

postponed changes produced undesirable results and missed key opportunities in

business. Overton and Burkhardt (1999) found that the most effective projects were

completed, when leaders handled several interrelated positions and led organizational

change. When aspiring leaders decided to adopt new policies and processes, it was

common for leaders to explore factors and initiatives that were effective for

organizational leaders.

48

Often, leaders addressed business issues without altering organizational

behaviors, which were at the core of organizational change and transformational

leadership. From a military perspective, Eide and Allen (2012) reported that behavior

changes and cultural changes must occur within an organization before true

transformation happened. For thirty years, Kotter shared a concern for transformational

leadership, developing eight-steps of organizational change: (a) leaders established a

state of urgency within the organization, (b) leaders established a powerful guiding

coalition with members, (c) leaders created an acceptable vision for all members, (d)

leaders communicated the vision to others, (e) leaders empowered others to act, (f)

leaders planned for and created wins, (g) leaders consolidated improvements and

produced change, and (h) leaders institutionalized new approaches (as reported by

Appelhaum, Habashy, Malo, & Shafiq, 2012).

After studying 61 health care leaders across America, Arbab, Spaulding, Johnson,

and Gamm (2014) reported that the top elements of organizational change included: (a)

the importance of alignment of values and culture, (b) business processes that facilitated

effective communication, and (c) accessing information to achieve initiatives. Leaders

that addressed organizational change and impacted their organization, pointing toward

directives for cultural change. Culture and climate change represented how leadership

and the followers’ behaved.

Leadership impacted organizational culture and climate. From a manufacturing

and engineering perspective, Yin, Jiang, and Jing (2013) reflected that the soul of an

organization pointed to the culture of the company, from the organizations deepest

influence on the behavior and choices made by the leaders. Actions and behaviors were

49

considered, when leaders sought to understand the culture and values of an organization,

shaping the perspectives of human capital that differentiated the business from other

organizations. According to Drucker, the culture of an organization needed to be

palpable, without tension, and without mean and obnoxious people, such as what

happened within the Girl Scouts of America organization (as reported by Hesselbein,

2006).

Within the realm of teamwork and organizational development, leaders often

directed the initiative to move an organization forward into a new state of cultural

change. Mamizadeh (1997) suggested that the common elements that shaped the mutual

understandings of an organization were: (a) simplified communication practices, (b)

adopting good decision making, (c) increased motivation, and (d) organizational

commitment. The culture of an organization was the overall theme of how the operation

functioned in business and society. Monavarian and Bakhtaei (2005) stated that the

mission of an organization was at the core of the organizational culture. David (2012)

argued that organizational culture was defined, as the pattern of internal and external

activities and behaviors that already existed within an organization. After studying

organizational culture in Iran, Ghsemi (2001) believed that it was not the mission or the

activities of an organization, but it was more about the cultural norms that assisted in the

identification of the culture. Effectiveness and efficiency within an organization

determined the limitations and boundaries set forth by top leaders that defined the culture

and engagement of the workers.

50

Employee Engagement

Sakes and Gruman (2014) reported that employee engagement was one of the

most popular topics in management. Between 2004 and 2014 dozens of research articles

and several meta-analyses on employee engagement were published. Despite the

popularity of the topic, there were concerns about the meaning, measurement, and theory

of employee engagement. Sakes and Gruman offered a theory of employee engagement

that reconciled and integrated Kahn’s (1990) Theory of Engagement and the Job

Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Sakes and Gruman

concluded that there was a lack of consensus on the meaning of employee engagement

and there were concerns about the validity of the measure of employee engagement.

Unanswered questions existed and much needed to be done to develop a science and

theory of employee engagement.

Mone, Eisinger, Guggenheim, Price, and Stine suggested that performance

management could be applied to increase levels of employee engagement. Engaged

employees were those, who felt involved, committed, passionate, and empowered and

demonstrated those feelings in their work behavior. Performance management was

conceptualized as five major activities that serve to organize relevant behaviors shown to

be either direct or indirect predictors of employee engagement. The five major activities

included: (a) setting performance and development goals, (b) providing ongoing feedback

and recognition, (c) managing employee development, (d) conducting mid-year and year-

end appraisals, and (e) building a climate of trust and empowerment. Mone, et al., (2011)

suggested that there was evidence for performance management, as a driver of employee

engagement; they concluded there was a need for additional research that clarified which

51

activities had the strongest impact on employee engagement. Dunn, Dastoor, and Sims

(2012) explored the relationship between transformational leader behavior and employee

commitment to an organization. The respondents for the study included 332 professional

employees from a large multi-national, high-tech organization in America and 142

respondents from the same organization in Israel. Data were collected using Kouzes &

Posner’s (1997) Leadership Practices Inventory and Meyer & Allen’s (1991) three-

dimensional Organizational Commitment scale. The findings provided evidence of a

relationship between leader behavior and employees’ commitment to the organization in

both America and Israel. The research strengthened the existing knowledge on the

effectiveness of U.S.-based leadership practices in other countries.

Literature Summary

Several resources were included in the literature review, which focused on

transformational and authentic leadership practices, organizational commitment, and the

leader’s quality of communication. Also, organizational change, organizational

culture/climate, employee retention, and employee engagement were identified in this

chapter, along with the definitions.

Summary

In chapter three the focus was on the methodology, research instruments, data

collection process, data analysis, and summary of the data.

52

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN

Chapter three presents the research design, as quantitative research, using three

instruments and a demographic questionnaire. This chapter provided: the population,

data collection, null hypotheses, research instruments, instrument reliability, and data

analyses.

Research Population

The population of this research consisted of participants serving three different

organizations in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. The three organizations were

chosen based on size, locality, and leadership availability. The data pool for this research

was collected from workers willing to participant in leadership research. The purpose of

this research was to identify and measure the relationship, if any, between the leadership

practices, a leader’s quality of communication, and the followers’ organizational

commitment.

Data was gathered from a Public School (Alpha Organization), a Retail Business

(Beta Organization), and a Warehousing Company (Delta Organization); all three

organizations were in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. The three organizations

were chosen because of: (a) the size and locality of each organization, (b) all three

organizations had an adequate number of participants for this research, and (c) all three

organizations were based and actively operating in the Central Piedmont of North

Carolina.

Data Collection

A letter was handed to the leader of each organization involved in the research

that explained the research process (see Appendix E). The letter explained that the

53

research did not require the name, address, or telephone numbers of respondents and

participants were assured anonymity. The letter included contact information for the

research. Each leader was contacted by telephone to arrange the best time to meet the

leader of each organization. It was important to note that eleven organizations were

contacted, and eight organizations declined access to survey their corporation. The major

reason was that legal departments of each organization cited fear of negative publicity

and the threat of limited anonymity. One organization that declined to participant in the

research reported that their leader had no interest in being rated by the followers and that

he did not want to know what the employees thought about his authentic leadership

practices and leadership communication.

A visit to the three organizations was scheduled in April 2014, a date and time to

distribute research instruments and collect data. Each leader indicated that their

organization was growing and prospering in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina.

The three leaders were interested in learning more about how leadership practices and

leadership communication impacted organizational commitment. If requested, a copy of

the research findings would be provided to each organization that participated in this

leadership research.

A research assistant handed each respondent a copy of the three research

instruments and a demographic profile (see Appendix A, B, C, D). A meeting with

employees of each organization was scheduled at break times, which allowed participants

enough time to complete the research instrument. A majority of the instruments were

collected at one visit. A visit was scheduled to give second-shift workers an opportunity

to participate in the research. The process generally took five to seven minutes to

54

complete. Upon completion, each participate folded their survey and placed it in a

collection box.

At the conclusion of the data collection, the information from the research

instruments was placed on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for statistical analysis. The

data collection was forwarded via email to a professional statistician for analysis. After

the statistical analysis, the data was delivered via email for interpretation and evaluation.

Null Hypotheses

Research Question 1: To what extent did the Authentic Leadership subscales and the

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower Organizational

Commitment – Identification?

Ho11: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership – Transparency total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment – Identification total subscale values.

Ho12: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho13: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Balanced Processing total subscale values and the

follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho14: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Self-Awareness total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho15: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

55

Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor total subscale values and follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho16: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction – Horizontal-Informal total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho17: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Communication Climate total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho18: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Top Management Communication total subscale

values and follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale

values.

Research Question 2: To what extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and the

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower Organizational

Commitment – Loyalty?

Ho21: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Authentic Leadership - Transparency total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho22: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho23: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Balanced Processing total subscale values and the

56

follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho24: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Self-Awareness total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho25: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor total subscale values and follower

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho26: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction – Horizontal-Informal total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho27: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Communication Climate total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho28: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Top Management Communication total subscale

values and follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Research Question 3: To what extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to Organizational Commitment –

Involvement?

Ho31: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Transparency total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho32: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

57

of Authentic Leadership – Moral-Ethical total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho33: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Balanced Processing total subscale values and the

follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho34: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Self-Awareness total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho35: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower

Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor Communication total subscale values

and follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho36: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower

Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor Communication total subscale values

and follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho37: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower

Communication Satisfaction - Communication Climate total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho38: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower

Communication Satisfaction - Top Management Communication total subscale

values and follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale

values.

58

Research Significance

Organizational leaders thought that keeping talented employees and quality direct

reports onboard the company would drive desired outcomes with more effectiveness and

a higher level of efficiency. Organizational leaders had assessed excessive turnovers and

unexpected job switching within the organizational unit. Excessive turnover and job

switching negatively impacted the culture and structure of the operation and caused

problems in training and succession planning. Leaders dealt with the complications and

discomfort of why direct reports had exited the organization. Organizational debilitation

led to an interest in retaining quality employees, with discovering more about quality

leadership practices and how they were related to organizational commitment.

Research Instruments

Three instruments and one demographic profile were administered in the research:

the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) designed by Avolio, et al., (2007), the

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) developed by Downs (1990), to

measure leadership communication across the organization; to measure authentic

leadership practices; the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by

Cook and Wall (1980), to indicate organizational commitment; and a demographic

profile, to assess age, gender, marital status, educational level, and time worked.

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire

This research employed a leadership practices questionnaire developed by Avolio,

et al., (2007), entitled the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), which was

designed to measure leadership practices and behaviors. The Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire included sixteen items and four subscales, which were as follows:

59

Transparency (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5); Moral/Ethical Conduct (items 6, 7, 8, 9); Balanced

Processing (items 10, 11, 12); and Self Awareness (items 13, 14, 15, 16). The forerunner

of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire was the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,

which was an acceptable and stable instrument utilized to identify the relationship

between leadership styles and psychosocial environments (Kanste, Miettunen, & Kyngäs,

2007; Alonso, et al., 2010). The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) was a

revised version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Bass and Avolio

(1997) spent decades developing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire (ALQ) have been applied by Avolio, et al., (2007), measuring various

types of leadership, including transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership

(Bass & Avolio, 1990; Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Avolio, et al., 2007).

Specifically, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire measured Transparency,

Moral/Ethical Conduct, Balanced Processing, and Self Awareness. The Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ)

were widely used instruments to measure leadership practices in a number of

organizational settings, and some reported that the MLQ was the most commonly used

instrument for measuring leadership (Alonso, Saboya, & Guirado, 2010).

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) was developed by Downs

and Hazen (1977) to indicate the level of communication satisfaction of respondents

(Downs, 1990). The CSQ consisted of fifty-items with a one-to-seven Likert point scale

that ranged from “very dissatisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (7). Likert (1967) developed a

60

Casual Numerical Sequence Model, used to measure the relationship between two or

more variables, which was typically a numerical sequence scale from 1 to 7.

For this research the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire was adapted by

using only four of the ten subscales to rate the level of satisfaction of the respondents.

The four subscales administered included Supervisory Communication subscale,

Horizontal-Informal Communication subscale, Communication Climate subscale, and

Top Management Communication subscale. Supervisory Communication subscale

included items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; Top Management Communication subscale included

items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Horizontal-Informal Communication subscale included items 11,

12, 13, 14, and 15; and Communication Climate subscale included items 16, 17, 18, 19,

and 20. The Communication Satisfaction subscales that were not included in this

research included Organizational Perspective, Personal Feedback, Organizational

Integration, Subordinate Communication, Media Quality, and Interdepartmental

Communication.

The CSQ Validity Assessment compared the subscales and found a great deal of

stability among the subscales (Varona, 1993). Rubin, Palmgreen, and Sypher (2004)

confirmed that evidence of concurrent validity existed for the CSQ. The Construct

Validity studied by Crino and White (1981) supported that the eight subscales of the

CSQ, including Organizational Perspective, Personal Feedback, Organizational

Integration, Supervisory Communication, Communication Climate, Horizontal-Informal

Communication, Media Quality, and Subordinate Communication had stability. The

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire was the primary instrument used in more than

30 dissertations and theses and has been translated into Turkish, Spanish, Japanese,

61

German, Dutch, and Chinese languages (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 2004). The CSQ

was administered in dissertations and academic projects around the world, specifically in

the United States, Australia (Downs, 1991), Guatemala (Varona, 1988; Varona, 1993),

Taiwan, Mexico (Alum, 1982), and Nigeria (Kio, 1979) (Rubin, et al., 2004).

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

The research employed the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), a

nine-item questionnaire developed by Cook and Wall (1980). The Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire measured three basic components of organizational

commitment: Identification, Involvement, and Loyalty. The OCQ was originally

designed to test organizational commitment and trust, especially useful for blue-collar

organizations in the United Kingdom and around the world. The Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire originally included a fifty-item scale developed by Cook and

Wall. By 1980 the Organization Commitment Questionnaire had been sampled and

tested by respondents in several organizations in Wales, Scotland, and England.

Respondent Profile

The demographic profile included five items: age, gender, highest level of

education, number of years working for the organization (part-time or full-time), and

marital status.

Instrument Reliability

Determining the reliability or internal consistency of an instrument before use in

research was an important first step. Cronbach (1951) introduced coefficient alpha to the

world, as an index for reliability in social science research (Abd- El-Fattah & Hassan,

2011). Since the introduction of the index, a significant number of researchers and

62

scholars have applied the procedure to research data to determine internal reliability

(Hsin-Yun, & Li-Jen, 2009).

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire

Avolio, et al., (2007) reported the reliability coefficients as measured by a

Cronbach alpha for the Authentic Leadership subscales, as follows: Transparency

Subscale .79, Moral-Ethical .87, Balanced Processing subscale .65, and Self-Awareness

subscale .85. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) reported an

acceptable reliability coefficient from .70 to .90 for the internal consistently as a result of

applying Cronbach’s alpha to test the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. According to

Wong and Laschinger (2013) the internal consistency of the Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire was an acceptable tool.

According to Bento and Ribeiro (2013) the internal consistency of the Authentic

Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) was .966, and the subscale reliability ranged from .855

to .944. Walumbwa, et al., (2008) reported that the internal consistency, after analyzing

212 full-time workers, revealed the following coefficients: Self-Awareness, .79;

Relational Transparency, .72; Internal-Moral Perspective, .73; and Balanced

Processing, .76.

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

Varona (1993) applied a Cronbach alpha coefficient to determine the overall

reliability of the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire. Varona found that the

internal consistency of the Communication Audit Questionnaire was .97. In 1990 Downs

applied a Cronbach’s alpha procedure and found that reliability was from .64 for the

63

Horizontal-Informal Communication subscale to .92 for the Top Management

Communication subscale.

The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) was subjected to a Test-

Retest Reliability procedure with 20 respondents and seven days between

administrations. The 20 respondents were re-tested with a different administrator; the

retest reliability coefficient was .94. The internal consistency studied by Crino and White

(1981) revealed an alpha coefficient of .86 in Personal Feedback, and an alpha coefficient

of .75 in Horizontal-Informal Communication.

Organizational Commitment Instrument

Cook and Wall (1980) reported that the OCQ was a reliable, stable, and adequate

for measuring and evaluating variables.

Data Analysis

The data collected in the research was ordinal scale, which suggested that a

measurement had order with more or less of a trait but did not indicate how much more

or less. Since the data was ordinal scale, the statistical analyses were nonparametric

procedures. Nonparametric statistical procedures rely on few or no assumptions about

the shape or parameters of the population distribution from which a sample was drawn.

Conversely, parametric statistical procedures rely on assumptions about the shape of the

distribution, a normal distribution for instance, in the underlying population and about the

form or parameters, such as means and standard deviations of the assumed distribution.

Four procedures were applied in the analyses of the data, including Frequencies

Analyses, Spearman's Ranked Correlation, Mann-Whitney Two Sample Test, and

Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance. A Frequencies Analysis counted the

64

occurrence of each data value for a variable and displayed that information in a table. A

Spearman's Ranked Correlation did not assume normality and was based on the ranks of

the data rather than the data values. Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated by

ranking the data within each of two groups, and then found the Pearson correlation for the

ranked data. The Spearman's Ranked Correlation coefficient measured the linear

relationship between the ranked data and thus measures the monotonic relationship

between the original variables. Did the variable increase or decrease consistently as the

other values increased? Spearman's Ranked Correlation coefficient falls between -1 and

1, like Pearson's r and was interpreted similarly.

The Kruskal-Wallis procedure tested for a difference among several treatment

groups but did not identify where the difference existed. The hypotheses tested were: Ha

- there was a difference among the distributions of the groups; Ho - there was no

difference among the distributions of the groups. A Multiple Comparison procedure was

applied to identify which groups were different. When the number of treatment groups

was two, the procedure reduced to the Mann-Whitney procedure. A Mann-Whitney

procedure made no assumption about normality or equality of variance. The hypotheses

being tested were: Ha - there was a difference in the medians of the groups; Ho - there

was no difference in the medians of the groups.

Summary

Data was gathered from a Public School, a Retail Business, and a Warehousing

Company; all three organizations were in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. A

research assistant handed each respondent a copy of the three research instruments and a

65

demographic profile during a scheduled break. The information from the research

instruments was placed on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for statistical analysis.

The research was developed around three questions: (a) to what extent did the

leadership practices and the leader quality of communication relate to follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification, (b) to what extent did the leadership

practices and the leader quality of communication relate to follower Organizational

Commitment - Loyalty, and (c) to what extent did the leadership practices and the leader

quality of communication relate to follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement?

Eight hypotheses were developed for each of the three research questions.

Three instruments and one demographic profile were administered in the research:

the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire designed by Avolio, et al., (2007), the

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire developed by Downs (1990), to measure

leadership communication across the organization; to measure authentic leadership

practices; the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Cook and Wall

(1980), to indicate organizational commitment; and a demographic profile, to assess age,

gender, marital status, educational level, and time worked. Evidence was provided that

each of the three instruments was valid and reliable.

Nonparametric procedures were applied as a response to the verity that the data

gathered was ordinal scale. Four procedures were applied in the data analysis including

Frequencies Analyses, Spearman's Ranked Correlation, Mann-Whitney Two Sample

Test, and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance.

66

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS

The purpose of this research was to identify the relationships, if any, between

follower Organizational Commitment and perceptions of Authentic Leadership practices

and leader Communication Satisfaction. The previous three chapters addressed the

background, literature review, and method of this research. In chapter four the research

findings are presented.

Data Collection

A research assistant contacted the organizations by telephone and followed the

conversation with an email that set forth the details of the three instruments and

demographic questionnaire. Data were collected between 12 April and 18 May 2014.

Telephone calls to leaders, emails, text messages, and visits were included in the

communication/data collection. The research instruments were completed by part-time

and full-time employees from three organizations, a Public School, a Retail Business, and

a Warehousing Company, located in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. Data were

collected from 299 participants.

Respondents completed three instruments and a demographic profile. The three

leaders did not complete research instruments. The three instruments were: (a) the rater

version of Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio, et al., 2007; Appendix A) that

measured the leadership practices of Transparency, Moral/Ethical, Balanced Processing,

and Self-Awareness; (b) the rater version of Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

(Downs and Hazen, 1977; Downs, 1990; Appendix B) that measured respondent

organizational communication satisfaction, and (c) the rater version of the Organizational

Commitment Instrument (Cook & Wall, 1980; Appendix C) that measured the

67

organizational commitment perspective of respondents. The Organizational Commitment

Instrument measured three subscales: Identification, Involvement, and Loyalty.

The demographic profile included five items: age, gender, marital status, highest

level of education, and number of years working part-time or full-time for the

organization. The findings from the three instruments and the demographic profile

assisted in determining, if a statistically significant correlation existed between the

subscales, which provided a basis for research conclusions and implications.

Descriptive Data

Sixty respondents were age 16 to 25, 85 respondents were age 26 to 35, 82

respondents were age 36 to 45, and 23 respondents were age 56 or above. The largest

number of respondents was age 26 to 35 or 28.4%; the second largest age group was ages

36 to 45 or 27.5%. Data were collected from 299 respondents; 112 or 37.6% were men

and 186 or (62.4%) were women. One-hundred-six or 35.6% of respondents were single,

144 respondents or 48.3% were married, and 48 or 16.1% were divorced.

Nine respondents or 3% were high school students, six respondents or 2.0% did

not graduate from high school, 67 or 22.5% were high school graduates, 63 or 21.1% had

attended college but did not graduate, and 46 or 15.4% held a two-year degree, 87 or

29.2% had a four-year degree, and 20 or 6.7% had a graduate or professional degree.

Seventy-nine respondents or 26.5% had been employed less than one year, 130

respondents or 43.5% had been employed one to four years; 60 or 20.1% had been

employed five to 10 years; and 29 or 9.7% were employed 11 years or more. (see Table

4.1)

68

Table 4.1

Age, Gender, Marital Status, Educational Level, and Worked Time Summary

Demographic Frequency %Age 16 – 25 60 20.1 26 – 35 85 28.4 36 – 45 82 27.4 46 – 55 48 16.1 56+ 23 7.7 Missing 1 .3

Total 299 100.0

Gender Men 112 37.5 Women 186 62.2 Missing 1 .3

Total 299 100.0

Marital Status Single 106 35.5 Married 144 48.2 Divorced 48 16.1 Missing 1 .3

Total 299 100.0

Educational Level In H.S. 9 3.0 H.S. Grad 6 2.0Did not Grad H.S. 67 22.4 Some College 63 21.1 2-Yr Degree 46 15.4 4-Yr Degree 87 29.1 Grad/Professional Grad 20 6.7 Missing 1 .3

Total 299 100.0

Work Time in Organization Less than 1 yr 79 26.4 1- 4 yrs 130 43.5 5 - 10 yrs 60 20.1 11+ yrs 129 9.7 Missing 1 .3

Total 299 100.0

69

Research Question One Analyses

Research Question 1: To what extent did the Authentic Leadership subscales and the

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower Organizational

Commitment - Identification?

Ho11: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Authentic Leadership - Transparency total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho12: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho13: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Balanced Processing total subscale values and the

follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho14: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Self-Awareness total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho15: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor total subscale values and follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho16: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Horizontal/Informal total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho17: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

70

Communication Satisfaction - Communication Climate total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale values.

Ho18: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Top Management Communication total subscale

values and follower Organizational Commitment - Identification total subscale

values.

A Spearman's Ranked Correlation procedure was applied to determine if there

was a relationship between Authentic Leadership - Transparency, Moral/Ethical,

Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness subscales and follower Organizational

Commitment - Identification. Correlation coefficients between the four Authentic

Leadership subscales and the Organizational Commitment - Identification subscales

ranged from .4493 to .5498. The p-value for each of the four comparisons was <.001,

which indicated statistically significant correlation between Authentic Leadership

subscales and follower Organizational Commitment - Identification subscale. (see Table

4.2)

Table 4.2

Spearman's Ranked Authentic Leadership/Communication Satisfaction/Organizational

Commitment-Identification Correlation Analyses

Hypothesis OCTotals Mean

ALTotals Mean AL Subscale

Correlation Coefficient t-Value p-Value

Ho11 11.71 10.36 Transparency .4586 8.89372 <.001

Ho12 11.71 8.33 Moral/Ethical .5498 11.34268 <.001

Ho13 11.71 5.68 Balanced Processing .4926 9.756057 <.001

Ho14 11.71 7.53 Self-Awareness .4493 8.667736 <.001

71

A Spearman's Ranked Correlation procedure was applied to determine if there

was a relationship between Communication Satisfaction subscales, including Supervisor

Communication, Horizontal-Informal Communication, Communication Climate, and Top

Management Communication and Organizational Commitment - Identification subscale.

Correlation coefficients between the four Communication Satisfaction subscales and the

Organizational Commitment - Identification subscale ranged from .3102 and .5681. The

p-value for each of the four comparisons was <.001, which indicated statistically

significant correlation between Communication Satisfaction subscales and Organizational

Commitment - Identification subscale. (see Table 4.3)

Table 4.3

Spearman's Ranked Communication Satisfaction/Organizational Commitment-

Identification Correlation Analyses

Hypothesis OCTotal Mean

CS Totals Mean Subscale

Correlation Coefficient t-Value p-Value

Ho15 11.71 17.61 Supervisor Communication .5641 11.77464 <.001

Ho16 11.71 23.97 Horizontal-Informal .3102 5.624262 <.001

Ho17 11.71 17.92 Communication Climate .5644 11.78343 <.001

Ho18 11.71 17.30 Top Management .5681 11.8953 <.001

Research Question Two Analyses

Research Question 2: To what extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and the

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower Organizational

Commitment - Loyalty?

Ho21: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower

perceptions of Authentic Leadership - Transparency total subscale values

and the follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

72

Ho22: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower

perceptions of Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical total subscale values

and the follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho23: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower

perceptions of Authentic Leadership - Balanced Processing total subscale

values and the follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale

values.

Ho24: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Self-Awareness total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho25: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor total subscale values and follower

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho26: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Horizontal/Informal total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho27: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Communication Climate total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

Ho28: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower perceptions of

Communication Satisfaction - Top Management Communication total subscale

values and follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty total subscale values.

73

A Spearman's Ranked Correlation procedure was applied to determine if there

was a relationship between Authentic Leadership - Transparency, Moral/Ethical,

Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness subscales and Organizational Commitment -

Loyalty subscale. Correlation coefficients between the four Authentic Leadership

subscales and the Organizational Commitment - Loyalty subscale ranged from .0988

to .1777. The p-value for Authentic Leadership - Transparency and Moral/Ethical and

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty was .010 and .002, less than .05, which indicated

statistically significant correlation between subscales. The p-value for Authentic

Leadership - Balanced Processing and Self-Awareness subscales and Organizational

Commitment - Loyalty subscale was greater than .05, indicating that there was no

statistically significant correlation.

Table 4.4

Spearman's Ranked Authentic Leadership/Organizational Commitment - Loyalty

Correlation Analyses

Hypothesis OC Total Mean

ALTotals Mean Subscale

Correlation Coefficient t-Value p-Value

Ho11 10.42 10.36 Transparency .1496 2.607882 .010

Ho12 10.42 8.33 Moral/Ethical .1777 3.112394 .002

Ho13 10.42 5.68 Balanced Processing .1017 1.762389 .079

Ho14 10.42 7.53 Self-Awareness .0988 1.711667 .088

A Spearman's Ranked Correlation procedure was applied to determine if there

was a relationship between Communication Satisfaction subscales, including Supervisory

Communication, Horizontal-Informal Communication, Communication Climate, and Top

Management Communication and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty. Correlation

74

coefficients between the four Communication Satisfaction subscales and the

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty subscale ranged from .0292 and .1734. The

p-value for Communication Satisfaction - Supervisory Communication subscale,

Communication Climate subscale, and Top Management Communication subscale and

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty was less than .05, which indicated statistically

significant correlation between three Communication Satisfaction subscales and

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty subscale. The exception to statistically significant

correlation was the Communication Satisfaction – Horizontal-Informal Communication

subscale and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty subscale. (see Table 4.5)

Table 4.5

Spearman's Ranked Communication Satisfaction Subscales/Organizational Commitment

- Loyalty Subscale Correlation Analyses

Hypothesis OC Total Mean

ALTotals Mean Subscale

Correlation Coefficient t-Value p-Value

Ho15 10.42 17.61 Supervisor .1332 2.316377 .021

Ho16 10.42 23.97 Horizontal-Informal .0292 .5036213 .615

Ho17 10.42 17.92 Climate .1535 2.677855 .008

Ho18 10.42 17.30 Top Management .1734 3.03461 .003

Research Question Three Analyses

Research Question 3: To what extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to Organizational Commitment –

Involvement?

Ho31: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Transparency total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

75

Ho32: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho33: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Balanced Processing total subscale values and the

follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho34: There was no statistically significant correlation between the follower perceptions

of Authentic Leadership - Self-Awareness total subscale values and the follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho35: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower Communication

Satisfaction - Supervisor Communication total subscale values and follower I

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho36: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower Communication

Satisfaction - Supervisor Communication total subscale values and follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho37: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower Communication

Satisfaction - Communication Climate total subscale values and follower

Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

Ho38: There was no statistically significant correlation between follower Communication

Satisfaction - Top Management Communication total subscale values and

follower Organizational Commitment - Involvement total subscale values.

A Spearman's Ranked Correlation procedure was applied to determine if there

was a relationship between the Authentic Leadership - Transparency, Moral/Ethical,

76

Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness subscales and Organizational Commitment -

Involvement subscale. Correlation coefficient between Authentic Leadership -

Transparency subscale and the Organizational Commitment - Identification subscale

was .2146. Correlation coefficients between the Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical,

Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness subscales and the Organizational Commitment

- Involvement subscale were negative correlations ranging from -.2613 and -.3218. As

the Organizational Commitment - Involvement values increased the leadership practice

subscale values decreased. The p-value for each of the four comparisons was <.001,

which indicated statistically significant positive and negative correlations between

Authentic Leadership subscales and Organizational Commitment - Involvement subscale.

(see Table 4.6)

Table 4.6

Spearman's Ranked Authentic Leadership Subscales/Communication Correlation - Involvement

Correlation Analyses

Hypothesis OCTotals Mean

ALTotal Means Subscale

Correlation Coefficient t-Value p-Value

Ho31 15.44 10.36 Transparency .2146 3.786517 <.001

Ho32 15.44 8.33 Moral/Ethical -.3038 -5.495676 <.001

Ho33 15.44 5.68 Balanced Processing -.2613 -4.66542 <.001

Ho34 15.44 7.53 Self-Awareness -.3218 -5.858116 <.001

A Spearman's Ranked Correlation procedure was applied to determine if there

was a relationship between Communication Satisfaction subscales - Supervisor

Communication, Horizontal-Informal Communication, Communication Climate, and Top

Management Communication and Organizational Commitment - Involvement subscale.

Correlation coefficients between Supervisor Communication, Communication Climate,

77

and Top Management Communication subscales and Organizational Commitment -

Involvement were negative correlations that ranged from -.1955 to -.2915. The p-value

for the three negatively correlated analyses was <.001, which indicated a statistically

significant negative correlation. The exception to the negative correlation and

statistically significant correlations was the correlation analysis of Communication

Satisfaction – Horizontal-Informal Communication subscale and Organizational

Commitment - Involvement subscale; the correlation coefficient was .0865 and the

p-value was .14, which indicated no statistically significant correlation. (see Table 4.7)

Table 4.7

Spearman's Ranked Communication Satisfaction Subscales/Organizational Commitment

Subscale Analyses

Hypothesis OCTotals Mean

ALTotals Means Subscale

Correlation Coefficient t-Value p-Value

Ho35 15.44 17.61 Supervisor -.2668 -4.767673 <.001

Ho36 15.44 23.97 Horizontal-Informal .0856 1.4805 .140

Ho37 15.44 17.92 Communication Climate -.1955 -3.435941 <.001

Ho38 15.44 17.30 Top Management -.2915 -5.250957 <.001

Other Finding

The focus of the research was on organizational commitment and the three

organizational commitment subscales. As part of the data analysis, Organizational

Commitment - Identification, Loyalty, and Involvement subscales were tested to see if

demographic profile variables caused a significant difference in any of the three

subscales. There was no significant difference in the 15 p-values, when the three

subscales were analyzed by age, gender, marital status, educational level, and years

worked categories. Demographic variables were not an issue in the research.

78

Summary

The purpose of this research was to identify the relationships, if any, between

follower Organizational Commitment and perceptions of Authentic Leadership practices

and leader Communication Satisfaction. Data were collected between 12 April and 18

May 2014 from 299 part-time and full-time employees of three organizations, a Public

School, a Retail Business, and a Warehousing Company in the Central Piedmont of North

Carolina. Data were collected from 299 participants. One-hundred-twelve respondents

were men and 186 respondents were women; 130 respondents had been employed

between one and four years. The largest number of respondents, 85, was age 26 to 35; 82

respondents were age 36 to 45. One-hundred-thirty respondents had worked for one to

four years for their company; 129 had worked 11 or more years.

There was a strong relationship (p = <.001) between Organizational Commitment

- Identification subscale values and the four Authentic Leadership Practices subscale

values and the four Communication Satisfaction subscale values. There was a

statistically significant relationship between Organizational Commitment - Loyalty and

Authentic Leadership - Transparency (p = .010) and Moral/Ethical (p = .002) subscale

values. There was a statistically significant correlation between Organizational

Commitment - Loyalty and Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor Communication

subscale value (p = .021), Communication Climate subscale value (p = .008, and Top

Management Communication subscale value (p = .003).

There was a statistically significant positive relationship between Organizational

Commitment - Involvement and Authentic Leadership - Transparency (p = <.001). There

was a statistically significant negative relationship between Organizational Commitment

79

- Involvement and Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical, Balanced Processing, and Self-

Awareness subscale values (p = <.001).

There was a statistically significant negative relationship between Organizational

Commitment - Involvement and Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor

Communication, Communication Climate, and Top Management Communication

(p = <.001).

Organizational Commitment - Identification, Loyalty, and Involvement subscales

were tested to see if demographic profile variables caused a significant difference in any

of the three subscales. Demographic variables were not an issue in the research.

 

80

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH INTERPRETATION

Research Summary

The purpose of this research was to identify the relationships between

Organizational Commitment subscale and perceptions of Authentic Leadership practices

and leader Communication Satisfaction subscales. Data were collected between 12 April

and 18 May 2014 from part-time and full-time employees from three organizations, a

Public School, a Retail Business, and a Warehousing Company, which were in the

Central Piedmont of North Carolina. Respondents completed three instruments and a

demographic profile.

The three instruments were: (a) Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Appendix

A) that measured the leadership practices of Transparency, Moral/Ethical, Balanced

Processing, and Self-Awareness; (b) Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

(Appendix B) that measured respondent organizational communication satisfaction and

(c) Organizational Commitment Instrument (Appendix C). The Organizational

Commitment Instrument measured three subscales: Identification, Involvement, and

Loyalty. A demographic profile included five items: age, gender, marital status, highest

level of education, and number of years working part-time or full-time for the

organization.

Data were collected from 299 participants; 112 were men and 186 were women.

Sixty respondents were age 16 to 25, 85 respondents were age 26 to 35, 82 respondents

were age 36 to 45, and 23 respondents were age 56 or above. One-hundred-six of

respondents were single, 144 respondents were married, and 48 were divorced. Nine

respondents were high school students, six respondents did not graduate from high

81

school, 67 were high school graduates, 63 attended college but did not graduate, and 46

held a two-year degree, 87 had a four-year degree, and 20 had a graduate or professional

degree. Seventy-nine respondents had been employed less than one year, 130

respondents had been employed one to four years; 60 had been employed five to 10

years; and 29 were employed 11 years or more.

There was a statistically significant positive correlation between (a)

Organizational Commitment - Identification subscale values and the four Authentic

Leadership subscale values (p = <.001); (b) Organizational Commitment - Loyalty and

Authentic Leadership - Transparency (p = .010) and Moral/Ethical (p = .002) subscale

values; and (c) Organizational Commitment - Involvement and Authentic Leadership -

Transparency (p = <.001) subscale values. There was a statistically significant negative

correlation between Organizational Commitment - Involvement subscale values and

Authentic Leadership - Moral/Ethical, Balanced Processing, and Self-Awareness subscale

values (p = <.001).

There was a statistically significant positive correlation between (a)

Organizational Commitment - Identification subscale values and the four Communication

Satisfaction subscale values (p = <.001); and (b) Organizational Commitment - Loyalty

and Communication Satisfaction - Supervisor Communication (p = .021),

Communication Climate (p = .008) and Top Management Communication

(p = .003) subscale values. There was a statistically significant negative correlation

between Organizational Commitment - Involvement subscale values and Supervisory

Communication, Communication Climate, and Top Management Communication

subscale values (p = <.001).

82

Research Conclusions

Conclusion 1: In that the correlation coefficients were high, and the p-value was

<.001 for each of the four Authentic Leadership hypotheses, there was evidence of

strong, positive relationship between the four subscales of Authentic Leadership and the

single subscale of Organizational Commitment - Identification. The first research

question analyzed through eight hypotheses was: To what extent did the Authentic

Leadership subscales and the Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower

Organizational Commitment - Identification?

Implication: Respondents in this research indicated that the values and actions of

their leader in the workplace had a strong influence on identity with the organization.

Because of the leader for whom they worked, there was a sense of pride in working for

the organization; there was a feeling of being a part of the organization; and respondents

were likely to recommend that a friend join the organization.

Conclusion 2: In the correlation analysis of the four Communication Satisfaction

subscales and Organizational Commitment - Identification subscale the p-values were

<.001, which indicated a strong, positive correlation between the two data sets. There

was a strong, positive relationship or correlation between (a) Authentic Leadership

subscales and (b) Communication Satisfaction subscales and Organizational Commitment

- Identification.

Implication: Communication functioned at all levels of the organization included

the interaction between supervisor and worker, between top managers and worker, and

among peers and worker. The communication climate made possible a focus of the

communication elements within an organization. The communication climate (a)

83

potentially added motivation, stimulation, and enthusiasm; (b) provided the information

needed for job performance; and (c) helped resolve inevitable conflicts within the

workforce.

Conclusion 3: There was evidence of a relationship, though some of evidence

was weak, between the Authentic Leadership subscales and Organizational Commitment

- Loyalty subscale. When a correlation analysis was applied to the four subscales of

Authentic Leadership and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty, the p-values for the

Transparency and Moral/Ethical subscales were less than .05, which indicated positive

correlation, and the p-value for Communication Climate and Top Management

Communication subscales was slightly greater than .05, which indicated a relationship,

though a lack of statistically significant correlation. The analysis of two hypotheses

indicated relationship or correlation and two hypotheses indicated values close to

statistically significant relationship or correlation.

Implication: Loyalty among respondents was not as strong as other variables

among the workforce. Loyalty was the glue that caused an employee to stick with an

organization, even when there were problems and conflictions within the organization. In

the long run loyalty may be more important than minor or moderate financial

considerations. When the cost of recruiting and training new employees was considered,

loyalty among employees was a characteristic to be cultivated.

Conclusion 4: There was a strong, positive relationship between Supervisor

Communication, Communication Climate, and Top Management Communication

subscales and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty subscale. The p-value for each of

the three correlation analyses was less than .05, indicating positive correlation.

84

Implication: A strong correlation between three of four subscales and

Organizational Commitment - Loyalty would indicate that respondents believe much

about the communication within the organization was as it ought to be. A strong

correlation suggests that respondents were, for the most part, satisfied with the

communication and respondents were at least moderately committed to the organization.

The statistical analysis would indicate that there was room for improvement and that

matters as they existed were relatively satisfactory.

Conclusion 5: There was no relationship between Communication Satisfaction –

Horizontal-Informal subscale and Organizational Commitment – Loyalty subscale. The

correlation analysis p-value was .615, which was a strong indication of no correlation.

When the mean values of items 11 through 15 of the Communication Satisfaction

Questionnaire were reviewed the values were higher, as a group, than items in the other

three groups. The high p-value was in part due to the application of a nonparametric

procedure. When the same data were analyzed with a Pearson Product Moment

Correlation procedure, a parametric procedure, the p-value was .102. When the

Horizontal-Informal Communication values were compared with the Organizational

Commitment - Loyalty there did not seem to be a match, as reflected in the p-value that

was significantly greater than .05.

Implication: The statistical analysis would indicate that, when respondents

reflected upon those with whom they worked and the environment in which they worked,

they rated the Horizontal-Informal Communication subscale higher than other

communication subscales. However, when the same respondents reflected upon issues

related to their loyalty to the organization in which they worked, the ratings were not as

85

high as with the communication variables. Thus, when the two data sets were compared

and analyzed for correlation, there was not a statistically significant correlation. The

desirability of the workplace trumped respondent loyalty. The two ratings did not match.

Conclusion 6: Eight hypotheses were analyzed to determine if there was a

relationship between Authentic Leadership subscales/Communication Satisfaction

subscales and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty subscale. There was (a) a

statistically significant relationship in five of eight hypotheses, (b) a close, though not

statistically significant, relationship in two hypotheses, and (c) a strong indication of no

relationship in one analysis. The second research question, analyzed through eight

hypotheses, was: To what extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and the

Communication Satisfaction subscales relate to follower Organizational Commitment -

Loyalty? There was definitely a relationship between Authentic Leadership subscales

and the Communication Satisfaction subscales and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty

but that relationship was in some instances weak or lacking in statistical significance.

Implication: The mean value for all respondents on all Authentic Leadership

items was 1.99 on a 0 to 4-point scale. A 2 on the scale indicated that leadership

characteristics were evident "sometimes"; a 3 on the scale indicated that leadership

characteristics were evident "fairly often," and a 4 "frequently, if not always". The mean

value for all respondents on all Communication Satisfaction items was 4.17 on a 0 to 7

scale. The mean value for all respondents on all Organizational Commitment items was

4.17 on a 0 to 7-point scale. If the overall values of the three broad variables were

viewed as an index of leadership skills for all leaders in the three organizations, there was

room for substantial improvement. The three organizations may want to consider

86

leadership programs that focus on the distinctiveness and benefits of authentic leadership,

communication satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Conclusion 7: When the Authentic Leadership subscales and the Organizational

Commitment - Involvement subscale were analyzed for correlation, each of four analyses

produced a p-value of <.001. One hypothesis, Transparency/Involvement, was positively

related and the other three Authentic Leadership hypotheses were negatively related, that

was the correlation coefficients were negative values ranging from -.2613 to -.3218. As

the Authentic Leadership values increased Organizational Commitment values decreased

or as Authentic Leadership values decreased Organizational Commitment values

increased. The p-value indicated that the subscales were related, even though the

relationship was, in some instances, negative.

Implication: The mean values that made up the Organization Commitment -

Involvement items were larger than the item mean values and overall subscale values that

made up the other two Organizational Commitment subscales. When the Organizational

Commitment - Involvement subscale was compared with the four Authentic Leadership

subscales and the Communication Satisfaction subscales a pattern of relationship was

evident in six negative correlations and one positive correlation. The three items that

made up the Organizational Commitment - Involvement focused on a willingness to help

the organization, a willingness to put forth extra effort to help the organization rather than

self, and pleasure in knowing that one's contribution was good for the organization. The

higher item values dealing with involvement and the negative correlation spoke to a

willingness by respondents to go the extra mile to benefit the organization. There was a

strong willingness to be involved with the organization for the sake of the organization.

87

Conclusion 8: When the Communication Satisfaction subscales and the

Organizational Commitment - Involvement subscale were analyzed for correlation; three

of four subscales analysis had a statistically significant correlation. The p-value for

Supervisor Communication, Communication Climate, and Top Management

Communication was <.001 and the correlation coefficients were negative ranging from

-.1955 to -.2915. The Communication Satisfaction - Horizontal-Informal/Organizational

Commitment - Involvement correlation yielded a positive correlation coefficient of .140,

which indicated no statistically significant correlation.

Implication 8: See the comments for Implication 7.

Conclusion 9: The demographic profile variables made no significant difference

in any of the three Organizational Commitment subscales. Age, gender, marital status,

educational level, and years worked did not impact the Organizational Commitment -

Identification, Loyalty, or Involvement subscale values.

Implication 9: The employees of the three organizations were drawn from the

Central Piedmont of North Carolina. While there was some variety in response to the

items, the overall responses reflected in the subscales did not vary significantly. There

was a uniformity of values and actions among the three workforces that provided a

minimum of conflict of ideas and actions.

Further Research

A first suggestion for further research would be to replicate the current research

with one major change. The change would be to track each respondent by the

organization in which they worked. Comparisons could be made on median values to

determine if there was a significant difference in the Authentic Leadership subscales, in

88

the Communication Satisfaction subscales, and in the Organizational Commitment

subscales. The focus of the research would be to determine if there was significant

difference in subscale values between school, retail, and warehouse personnel.

Another area for further research would be to focus on one of three organizations

and track (a) Authentic Leadership overall and subscale values, (b) Communication

Satisfaction overall and subscale values, and (c) Organizational Commitment overall and

subscale values for each manager/leader to determine strengths and weaknesses in

leadership throughout the organization.

A third area of for research would be a focus Organizational Commitment -

Involvement to determine why this subscale had higher item and subscale value and why

there were statistically significant negative correlation values.

Summary

Chapter five provided a brief overview of the research. A summary of the

findings was provided. Nine conclusions and resulting implications were included.

Three suggestions were made for further research.

There was a strong, positive relationship or correlation between (a) Authentic

Leadership subscales and (b) Communication Satisfaction subscales and Organizational

Commitment - Identification. Because of the leader for whom they worked, there was a

sense of pride in working for the organization; there was a feeling of being a part of the

organization; and respondents were likely to recommend that a friend join the

organization. There was a strong, positive relationship between Supervisor

Communication, Communication Climate, and Top Management Communication

subscales and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty subscale.

89

The second research question, analyzed through eight hypotheses, was: To what

extent did Authentic Leadership subscales and the Communication Satisfaction subscales

relate to follower Organizational Commitment - Loyalty? There was definitely a

relationship between Authentic Leadership subscales and the Communication

Satisfaction subscales and Organizational Commitment - Loyalty but that relationship

was in some instances weak or lacking in statistical significance.

When the Organizational Commitment - Involvement subscale was compared

with the four Authentic Leadership subscales and the Communication Satisfaction

subscales a pattern of relationship was evident in six negative correlations and one

positive correlation. There was a strong willingness to be involved with the organization

for the sake of the organization.

The demographic profile variables made no significant difference in any of the

three Organizational Commitment subscales. Age, gender, marital status, educational

level, and years worked did not impact the Organizational Commitment - Identification,

Loyalty, or Involvement subscale values.

90

References

Abd-El-Fattah, S. M., & Hasan, H. K. (2011). Dependent-alpha calculator: Testing the

differences between dependent coefficients alpha. Journal of Applied Quantitative

Methods, 6(2), 59-61.

Al Zayed, H. (2008). Creative breakthroughs in leadership: James Madison, Abraham

Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. Journal of Third World Studies, 25(1), 311-313.

Albino, J. N. (2007). I. Presidential Address: Leading and learning: Lessons on

leadership from the science of learning. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10(2),

91-104. doi:10.1080/10887150701451122.

Alonso, F., Saboya, P., & Guirado, I. (2010). Liderazgo transformacional y liderazgo

transaccional: un análisis de la estructura factorial del Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) en una muestra española. (Spanish). Psicothema, 22(3),

495-501.

Alsaeedi, F., & Male, T. (2013). Transformational leadership and globalization:

attitudes of school principals in Kuwait. Educational Management Administration

&Leadership, 41(5), 640-657. doi:10.1177/1741143213488588.

Alum, C. V. (1982). A case study of communication satisfaction in Nova DeMonterrey

(Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Kansas.

Antonakis J., Avolio B.J. & Sivasubramaniam N. (2003) Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly 14, 261–295.

91

Appelhaum, S.H., Habashy, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H. (2012) Back to the future:

Revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development,

31(8), 764 - 782.

Arbab Kash, B., Spaulding, A., Johnson, C. E., & Gamm, L. (2014). Success factors for

strategic change initiatives: A qualitative study of healthcare administrators'

perspectives. Journal of Healthcare Management, 59(1), 65-81.

Avolio, B.J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F. (2007). Authentic leadership questionnaire for

assessment and development (ALQ). Retrieved from www.mindgarden.com.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2002). Transformational and charismatic

leadership: The road ahead. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the

art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.

Balay, R., & İpek, C. (2010). Teachers’ perception of organizational culture and

organizational commitment in a Turkish primary school. Journal of World of Turk

/ Zeitschrift Für Die Welt Der Türken, 2(1), 363-384.

Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-32.

Bass, B. M. (1999). On the taming of charisma: A reply to Janice Beyer. Leadership

Quarterly, 10, 541–553.

92

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual

for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range of leadership: Manual for the Multi-

factor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (2nd

ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7(3), 18-40. doi: 10.1177/1071791

90000700302.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217.

Bateman, T. & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of

organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 95-112.

Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of

Sociology, 66, 32-42.

Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth

making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.

93

Bennett, J. V., & Thompson, H. C. (2011). Changing district priorities for school–

business collaboration: Superintendent agency and capacity for

institutionalization. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 826-868.

doi:10.1177/0013161X11417125.

Bennis, W. (1982). Warren Bennis on...the art form of leadership. Training &

Development Journal, 36(4), 44.

Bento, A. V., & Riberio, M. I. (2013). Authentic leadership in school organizations.

European Scientific Journal, 9(31), 1857–7881.

Bera De Azevedo Sorbral, F., & De Freitas Gimba, R. (2012). As prioridades

Axiologicas do lider authentico: Um Estudo Sorbre Valores E. Lideranca.

(Portuguese). Revista De Administração Mackenzie, 13(3), 96-121.

Bither, S., & Gandhi, S. (2011). An audit of patients attending outpatient services of

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Christian Dental College,

Ludhiana, Punjab, India. Journal of Education & Ethics in Dentistry, 1(1), 28-32.

doi:10.4103/0974-7761.93407.

Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership

excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Blank, W. (1995). The natural laws of leadership. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Blunt, R. (2003). Leadership in the crucible: The paradox of character and power.

Public Manager, 32(4), 35-39.

94

Bogin, B., Azcorra, H., Wilson, H., Vázquez-Vázquez, A., Avila-Escalante, M., Castillo-

Burguete, M., & ... Dickinson, F. (2014). Globalization and children's diets: The

case of Maya of Mexico and Central America. Anthropological Review, 77(1), 11-

32. doi:10.2478/anre-2014-0002.

Bole, W. (1994). Servant leadership: A '70s concept, opens doors to possibilities.

National Catholic Reporter, 30(23), 4.

Borgatta, E. F., Bales, R. F., & Couch, A. S. (1954). American Sociological Review,

19(6), 755-759.

Branson, C. (2007). Effects of structured self-reflection on the development of

authentic leadership practices among Queensland primary school principals.

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 225-246.

Bryman A. (1999) Leadership in organizations. In Clegg S.R., Hardy C., & Nord W.R.

(Eds.) Managing Organizations (pp. 26-42). London: Sage.

Buchan, J., Couper, I. D., Viroj, T., Khampasong, T., Jaskiewicz, W., Perfilieva, G., &

Dolea, C. (2013). Early implementation of WHO recommendations for the

retention of health workers in remote and rural areas. Bulletin of the World Health

Organization, 91(11), 834-840. doi:10.2471/BLT.13.119008.

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Burns, M., Bingham, T., & Galagan, P. (2010). Trial by Fire. T+D, 64(9), 36-42.

Burtis, J., & Turman, P. (2010). Leadership communication as citizen: Give direction to

your team, organization, or community as a doer, follower, guide, manager, or

leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: /10.4135/9781452230375

Burton, L. (2013). Lawyer management: Reed Smith. Lawyer, 27(43), 1.

95

Bush, T. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues

in leadership development. Educational Review, 61(4), 375-389.

Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of

transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and

performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395-412.

doi:10.1080/10413200903204754.

Cappelli, P. (1999). The new deal at work: Managing the market-driven workforce.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Center for Ethical Leader. (2014). Ethical leadership. Retrieved from the website

www.ethicalleadership.org.

Challenge, J. (2003). The coming labor shortage: Current trends point to a shortage of

qualified labor in the immediate future. Here are some ways to cope with it.

The Futurist, 37(5).

Challenger, J. E. (1993). Job-hunting myths. Veterinary and Human Toxicology,

35(1), 77.

Chang, J., & Choi, J. (2007). The dynamic relation between organizational and

professional commitment of highly educated research and development

professionals. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(3), 299-316.

Chernyak-Hai, L., & Tziner, A. (2014). Relationships between counterproductive work

behavior, perceived justice and climate, occupational status, and leader-member

exchange. Revista De Psicologia Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 30(1), 1-

12. doi:10.5093/tr2014a1

Chung, J. Y., Chan Su, J., Kyle, G. T., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Servant leadership and

96

procedural justice in the U.S. National Park Service: The antecedents of job

satisfaction. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 28(3), 1-15.

Chung, Y. (2011). Why servant leadership? Its uniqueness and principle in the life of

Jesus. Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary, 14(2), 159-170.

Clampitt, P. G. (1993). Communication satisfaction: A useful construct. Journal of

Communication, 1(2), 84-I02.

Cook, J. D., & Wall, T. D. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational

commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational &

Organizational Psychology, 53, 39–52.

Cooper, L. (2011). Leadership and the law. Young Lawyer, 15(9), 1-3.

Cottam, M., & Preston, T. (2007). Building stronger images of leadership: A

framework for integrating image theory and leadership trait analysis into a more

powerful tool for analyzing leaders-at-a-distance. Conference Papers of the

International Studies Association, 1-33.

Covey, S.R. (1990). Principle centered leadership. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in

personal change. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster: New York.

Crino, M. D., & White, M. C. (1981). Satisfaction in communication: An examination of

the Downs-Hazen measure. Psychological Reports, 49, 831-838.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16, 297- 334.

97

Dahlin, R., Danford, N., Hix, C., Riippa, K., & Riippa, L. (2004). Fall 2004 hardcovers:

Business & personal finance. Publishers Weekly, 251(32), 147-151.

David, F. R. (2012). Strategic management: A competitive advantage approach, concepts

and cases (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Davis, T. L. (2013). A qualitative study of the effects of employee retention on the

organization. Insights to a Changing World Journal, 2013(2), 25-112.

Dewan, T., & Myatt, D. P. (2008). The qualities of leadership: Direction,

communication, and obfuscation. American Political Science Review, 102(3),

351-368.

Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and

validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business & Psychology,

26(3), 249-267. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9194.

Doherty, A. J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived

transformational/transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic

administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11(3), 275.

Downey, H., Sheridan, J. E., & Slocum Jr., J. W. (1976). The path-goal theory of

leadership: A longitudinal analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human

Performance, 16(1), 156-176.

Downs, C. W. (1990). Communication audit questionnaire (Unpublished manuscript).

University of Kansas.

Downs, A. (1991). The relationship between communication and organizational

commitment in two Australian organizations (Unpublished master’s thesis).

University of Kansas.

98

Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication

satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63-74.

Drucker, P. (April 8, 1996). Quoted in Rifkin, Glenn. Leadership: Can it be

learned? Forbes ASAP.

Duignan, P. (2003). Educational leadership: Key challenges and ethical tensions.

New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.

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

transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and

satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.).

Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. New York: NY:

JAI, an imprint of Elsevier Science.

Dunn, M. W., Dastoor, B., & Sims, R.L. (2012. Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of

Multidisciplinary Research, 4(1), 45-59.

Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women

become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female

leaders. Psychological Bulletin, 109 (3), 573–598.

Eid, J., Mearns, K., Larsson, G., Laberg, J., & Johnsen, B. (2012). Leadership,

psychological capital and safety research: Conceptual issues and future research

questions. Safety Science, 50(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.001

Eide, C. K., & Allen, C. D. (2012). The more things change: Acquisition reform

remains the same. Defense Acquisition Research Journal, 19(1), 99-120.

99

Egriboyun, D. (2014). Ortaoğretim Okullarina Gorrev Yapan Yonetici Ve Öğretimenlerin

Örgutsel Destek Ve Örgutsel Bağlilikları Arasindaki Iliski. (Turkish). Gümüshane

University Electronic Journal Of The Institute Of Social Science / Gümüshane

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 5(9), 25-52.

Elmawazini, K., Sharif, A., Manga, P., & Drucker, P. (2013). Trade globalization,

financial globalization and inequality within South-East Europe and CIS

countries. Journal of Developing Areas, 47(2), 303-317. doi:10.1353/jda.

2013.0030

Fairholm, M., & Fairholm, G. (2009). Understanding leadership perspective.

New York, NY: Springer.

Fayol, H. (1916). General and industrial management. London: Pitma.

Ferrante, J. V. (1994). Reflections of human leadership in the heritage of asian dogs. An

interdisciplinary study in: Leadership, religion, art, genetics, symbolism, history,

psychology, and real and mystical beings (Order No. 9524668). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Global. (304157054). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

304157054?accountid=12085.

Flin, R. R., Yule, S. S., McKenzie, L. L., Paterson-Brown, S. S., & Maran, N. N. (2006).

Attitudes to teamwork and safety in the operating theatre. Surgeon, 4(3), 145-151.

Forster, M. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice/leadership in nonprofit

organizations. Administration in Social Work, 31(1), 89-91.

Freud, S. (1927), Civilisation and its discontents. London, UK: Hogarth Press.

Friedenberg, M. (2004). Lessons from business masters. Informationweek, (1019), 60.

100

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. (2011). Authentic leadership: A r

review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–

1145.

Ghasemi, S. (2001). Transformation of organizational culture and control strategies.

Tadbir, 12(115).

Ghorbanhosseini, M. (2013). The effect of organizational culture, teamwork and

organizational development on organizational commitment: The mediating role of

human capital. Tehnicki Vjesnik /Technical Gazette, 20(6), 1019-1025.

Giffords, E. D. (2009). An examination of organizational commitment and professional

commitment and the relationship to work environment, demographic and

organizational factors. Journal of Social Work, 9(4), 386-404. doi:10.1177/

1468017309346232.

Giltinane, C. (2013). Leadership styles and theories. Nursing Standard, 27(41), 35-39.

Ginsburg, D. (2011). If we build it, they will come. Journal of Jewish Communal

Service, 87(1/2), 77-80.

Goh, J. (2009). Parallel leadership in an unparallel world—cultural constraints on the

transferability of Western educational leadership theories across cultures.

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(4), 319-345.

doi:10.1080/13603120902980796

Goulet, L., Jefferson, J., & Szwed, P. (2012). Leadership is everybody's business.

T+D, 66(8), 48-53.

Greenbaum, H. Clampitt, P., & Willhnganz, S. (1988) Organizational communication:

An examination of four instruments. Management Communication Quarterly,

101

2 (2), 245-282.

Greenfield, K. (2013). The great leader. Southern Review, 49(1), 140-149.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977/2002). Servant-leadership: A journey in to the nature of

legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Grunes, P., Gudmundsson, A., & Irmer, B. (2014). To what extent is the Mayer and

Salovey (1997) model of emotional intelligence a useful predictor of leadership

style and perceived leadership outcomes in Australian educational institutions?

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(1), 112-135.

doi:10.1177/1741143213499255

Haeger, D. L., & Lingham, T. (2013). Intergenerational collisions and leadership in the

21st century. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(3), 286-303.

doi:10.1080/15350770.2013.810525

Hartog, D., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus

transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational &

Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34.

Hassan, A. & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement.

International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6(3), 164-170.

Hermann, M. (1983). Handbook for assessing personal characteristics and foreign policy

orientations of political leaders. Columbus, OH: Mershon Center Occasional

Papers.

Hesburgh, T. M. (1971). Presidential leadership. Journal of Higher Education. 42(9),

763-765.

Hesselbein, F. (2006). Moving Peter Drucker's works and wisdom around the world.

102

Leader To Leader, 2006(41), 4-6.

Hogard, E., & Ellis, R. (2006). Using a communication audit to evaluate organizational

communication. Evaluation Review, 30(2), 171-187. doi:10.1177/013841X052

78789

Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., Carton, S. T., Miller, E., & Raposo, P. J. (2013). Testing

Leader–Member Exchange Theory as a lens to understand students’ classroom

justice perceptions and antisocial communication. Communication Quarterly,

61(5), 497-518. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.799511

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

Quarterly, 16, 321–338.

Hsin-Yun, L., & Li-Jen, W. (2009). An effect size index for comparing two independent

alpha coefficients. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,

62(2), 385-400. doi:10.1348/000711008X315518

Hughes, C. R. (2008). Japan in the politics of Chinese leadership legitimacy: Recent

developments in historical perspective. Japan Forum, 20(2), 245-266.

doi:10.1080/09555800802047517.

Hunt, J. G. (1967). Fiedler's leadership contingency model: An empirical test in three

organizations. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 2(3), 290-308.

Iles, P., & Preece, D. (2006). Developing leaders and developing leadership? The

academy of chief executives’ programmes in the north east of England.

Leadership, 3(2), 317–340.

Jain, S. (2013). The concept of employee branding and its effectiveness as a tool for

employee retention. Indian Streams Research Journal, 3(3), 1-4.

103

Johns, H. E., & Moser, H. (1989). From trait to transformation: The evolution of theories

of leadership. Education, 110(1), 115.

Jungsik, K., Song, E., & Seongsoo, L. (2013). Organizational change and employee

organizational identification: Mediation of perceived uncertainty. Social Behavior

& Personality: An International Journal, 41(6), 1019-1034. doi:10.2224/sbp.

2013.41.6.1019

Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement

at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kanste, O., Miettunen, J., & Kyngäs, H. (2007). Psychometric properties of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire among nurses. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 57(2), 201-212. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04100.x

Kar, S., & Misra, K. C. (2013). Nexus between work life balance practices and

employee retention: The mediating effect of a supportive culture. Asian Social

Science, 9(11), 63-69. doi:10.5539/ass.v9n11p63

Kearney, C. (2009). Globalization. Vital Speeches of the Day, 75(5), 210-214.

Keith, R. E., Hopp, F. P., Subramanian, U., Wiitala, W., & Lowery, J. C. (2010). Fidelity

of implementation: Development and testing of a measure. Implementation

Science, 5, 99-109. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-99

Kellis, D. S., & Ran, B. (2013). Modern leadership principles for public administration:

Time to move forward. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(1), 130-141.

doi:10.1002/pa.1453

Killeen, L. A., Lopez-Zafra, E., & Eagly, A. H. (2006). Envisioning oneself as a leader:

Comparisons of women and men in Spain and the United States. Psychology of

104

Women Quarterly, 30, 312–322.

Kim, J., & Park, K. (2008). A study on the multidimensional approach of employee

resistance to organizational change [In Korean]. Korean Journal of Management,

16, 1-41.

Kio, J.B.A. (1979). A descriptive study of communication satisfaction, need satisfaction,

and need importance index among Nigerian workers (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of Kansas.

Kister, K. (1994). Book reviews: Reference. Library Journal, 119(8), 96.

Kleinman, M. L. (2004). Eight leadership lessons of a "well-tempered" executive.

Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 80(1), 19-23.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1997). Leadership Practices Inventory - Individual

Contributor (LPI-IC). Observer Response Sheet. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass/Pfeiffer.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey - Bass.

Kreimer, N. (2013). Relationship building through narrative sharing: A retreat for

Muslim and Jewish emerging religious leaders. Teaching Theology & Religion,

16(4), 371-380. doi:10.1111/teth.12138

Lajimodiere, D. K. (2011). Ogimah Ikwe: Native women and their path to leadership.

Wicazo Sa Review, 26(2), 57-82.

Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2010). Wanting change: The relationship of

perceptions of organizational innovation with correctional staff job stress, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Policy Review,

105

21(2), 160-184. doi:10.1177/0887403409353166

Lewis, H. M. (2006). The Jewish studies professor as communal leader. Journal of

Jewish Studies, 24(3), 127-135.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Liu, X., & Wang, Z. (2013). Perceived risk and organizational commitment: The

moderating role of organizational trust. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 229-

240.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytical review of the

literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

Madsen, T., Mosakowski, E., & Zaheer, S. Knowledge retention and personnel mobility:

The nondisruptive effects of inflows of experience. Organization Science,

14(2), 173-191.

Maertz, C.P., Mosley, D.C., & Alford, B. (2002). Does organizational commitment fully

mediate constituent commitment effects: A re-assessment and clarification.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1300-1313.

Mamizadeh, J. (1997). Culture and infrastructure of the organization. Tadbir, 7(61).

Massamba, G., Kariuki, S. M., & Ndegwa, S. N., (2004). Globalization and Africa's

regional and local responses. Journal of Asian & African Studies, 39(1/2), 29-45.

doi:10.1177/0021909604048248

Mathews, B. P., & Shepherd, J. L. (2002). Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 75, 369-375.

Mathews, B. P., & Shepherd, J.L. (2002). Dimensionality of Cook and Wall's (1980)

106

British Organizational Commitment Scale revisited. (Short research note).

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. Retrieved January 8,

2014 from HighBeam Research @ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-

92615475.html.

Maxwell, J. (2013). John Maxwell on leadership. T+D, 67(2), 19.

McCrimmon, M. (1995). Bottom-up leadership. Executive Development, 8(5), 6.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205864428?accountid

=12085.

McKeown, E. (2010, March) Retention in the Upswing, Training and Development, 22.

Melling, T. (1988). Management development for job changers. Industrial and

Commercial Training, 20(6), 15-19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb004117

Mendonca, M. (2001). Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations. Canadian

Journal of Administrative Science, 18(4), 266 - 276.

Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment: Some methodological considerations. Human Resource

Management Review, 1, 61-98.

Mitchell, C. (2013). Leadership practices and organizational commitment: A correlation

study in two Midwestern organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Tennessee Temple University, Chattanooga, TN.

Monavarian, A., & Bakhtaei, A. (2005). Understanding of organizational culture based

on Denison model. 4th International Conference of Management. Tehran, Iran.

Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C. (2011). Performance

management at the wheel: Driving employee engagement in organizations.

107

Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 205–212. doi: 10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

Morrison, A. R. (2013). Educational leadership and change: Structural challenges in the

implementation of a shifting paradigm. School Leadership & Management, 33(4),

412-424. doi:10.1080/13632434.2013.813462

Morris, C. (2011). The relationship between church staff members’ job satisfaction and

their perception of pastoral leadership practices (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Tennessee Temple University, Chattanooga, TN.

Myra, H., & Shelly, M. (2005). The leadership secrets of Billy Graham. Zondervan:

Grand Rapids, MI.

Nahata, M., Kelley, K., McAuley, J., Bennett, M., Carnes, C., Casper, K., & ... Massaro,

A. (2010). Renewing vision and strategic priorities for an academic unit.

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(1), 1-7.

Neider, L., & Schriesheim, C. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI):

Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, (6), 1146–1164.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008

Needleman, S. E. (2008, Mar 18). When job shifts loom, it can pay to look wide. Wall

Street Journal Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/399096767?

accountid=12085.

Norris, T. S, CSP, A.R.M., C.P.S.I. (2011). Grow your leadership skills. Professional

Safety, 56(8), 1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 904987990

accountid=12085.

108

Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Obama, B. (2013). Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. Daily Compilation of

Presidential Documents, 1-4.

Ogbeide, G. A. (2011). Leadership styles for foodservice managers. Journal of Culinary

Science & Technology, 9(3), 177-192. doi:10.1080/15428052.2011.602300

Organ, D. W. (1996). Leadership: The great man theory revisited. Business Horizons,

39(3), 1-92. doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813(96)90001-4

Overton, B. J., & Burkhardt, J. C. (1999). Drucker could be right, but ... : New

leadership models for institutional-community partnerships. Applied

Developmental Science, 3(4), 217.

Parrish, F. (2007). Front end/back end: The importance of communication.

Dermatology Nursing, 19(4), 379.

Peccei, R., & Guest, D. (1993). The dimensionally and stability of organizational

commitment. Discussion, article number 149. London: Centre for Economic

Performance, London School of Economics.

Perkins, K. (2013). Investation...an original leadership concept. Nursing Management,

44(4), 34-39. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000428200.29636.5

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-09.

Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., Battistelli, A., Salaiani, L., Penna, M., & Allegrini, E.

109

(2012). Change-related expectations and commitment to change of nurses: the

role of leadership and communication. Journal of Nursing Management, 20(5),

582-591. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01322.x

Porumbsecu, G., Park, J., & Oomsels, P. (2013). Building trust: Communication and

subordinate trust in public organizations. Transylvanian Review of Administrative

Sciences. (38), 158-179.

Potvin, T. C. (1992). Employee organizational commitment: An examination of its

relationship to communication satisfaction and an evaluation of questionnaires

designed to measure the construct (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas,

991. Dissertations Abstracts International, 52, 4147A.

Pous, G. (2007). Cultura organizacional e identidad. Hospitalidad ESDAI, (11), 25-45.

Purdum, T. (2005). Leadership look inside for the future. Industry Week/IW, 254(13), 6-

10.

Redding, W. C. (1978). Communication within the organization. New York. NY:

Industrial Communication Council.

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting

employees' psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research,

65(3), 429–43. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.003

Rifkin, J. M. (1998). A smooth transition for switching careers. Hispanic Times

Magazine, 19(2), 51.

Roots, R. K., & Li, L. C. (2013). Recruitment and retention of occupational therapists and

physiotherapists in rural regions: a meta-synthesis. BMC Health Services

Research, 13(1), 1-3. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-59

110

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger.

Rowe, M. (2004). Link operational, strategic financial metrics. Quality Progress, 37(7),

10.

Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994/2004). Communication research

measures: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford Press

Ruggieri, S., & Abbate, C. (2013). Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team

identification. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(7),

1171-1178. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.7.1171

Ruíz, P., Martínez, R., & Rodrigo, J. (2010). Intra-organizational social capital in

business organizations: a theoretical model with a focus on servant leadership as

antecedent. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, (1), 43-59.

Rusu, R. (2013). Affective organizational commitment, continuance organizational

commitment or normative organizational commitment?. Buletin Stiintific, 18(2),

192-197.

Sakes, A.M., & Gruman, J.A. (2014). What do we really know about employee

engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155-181. doi:

10.1002/hrdq.21187

Sallan, J., Simo, P., Fernandez, V., & Enache, M. (2010). The relationship between

organizational commitment and intention to leave: A model of two components of

continuance commitment. Cuadernos de Gestión, 10(2), 15-27.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: John

Wiley & Sons.

Schruijer, S. G. L., & Vansina, L. S. (2002). Leader, leadership and leading: From

111

individual characteristics to relating in context. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23(7), 869-874. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

224866722?accountid=12085.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical

advanced and empirical testes in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Shatkin, G. (2004). Globalization and local leadership: Growth, power and politics in

Thailand's Eastern Seaboard. International Journal of Urban & Regional

Research, 28(1), 11-26. doi:10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00500.x

Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. J. (2014).

Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of

a new measure. Implementation Science, 9(1), 1-35. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-7.

Sheridan, J. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. The Academy of

Management Journal, 35(5), 1036-1056.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.

Shoemaker, D. J., Snizek, W. E., & Bryant, C. D. (1977). Toward a further clarification

of Becker's Side-Bet Hypothesis as applied to organizational commitment. Social

Forces, 56(2), 598-603.

Singer, M. S., & Singer, A. E. (1990). Situational constraints on transformational

versus transactional leadership behavior, subordinates' leadership preference, and

satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 385-396.

Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. (2000). Gendered meanings of commitment from high

112

technology engineering managers in the United Kingdom and Sweden. Gender,

Work & Organization, 7(1), 1-19.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research.

New York, NY: Free Press.

Strang, K. (2007). Examining effective technology project, leadership traits, and

behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 424-462. doi:10.1016/

j.chb.2004.10.041

Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R., (2001) The MLQ revisited, Psychometric

properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.

The Magnetic Pull. (2010). Nursing Management, 41(2), 38-44.

Tillman, J. (2001). A leadership credo for the new millennium. Black Issues in Higher

Education, 17(23), 136.

Tourish, D. (2014). Leadership, more or less? A processual, communication perspective

on the role of agency in leadership theory: Leadership, 10(1), 79-98. doi:

10.1177/1742715013509030

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of

perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the

executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5-37.

Van Wart, M. (2012). The role of trust in leadership. Public Administration Review.

72(3), 454-458.

Varona, F. (1988). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational

commitment in three Guatemalan organizations (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of Kansas.

113

Varona, F. (1993). Relationship between communication satisfaction and

organizational commitment in three Guatemalan Organizations. Ann Arbor,

MI: University of Michigan Press.

Varona, F. (1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and

organizational commitment in three Guatemalan Organizations. The Journal of

Business Communication, 33(2), 111-140.

Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and

transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a

path-goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational & Organizational

Psychology, 81(1), 71-82.

Voon, M.L., Lo, M.C., Ngui, K.S., & Ayob, N.B. (2011). The influence of leadership

styles on employees’ job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia.

International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24-32.

Walumbwa F.O., Avolio B.J., Gardner W.L., Wernsing T.S., & Peterson, S.J. (2008)

Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure.

Journal of Management 34 (1), 89 – 126.

Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Retracted: Authentically

leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 4–24. doi: 10.1002/job.653

Wesley, C. H. (1965). The great man theory of emancipation. Negro History Bulletin,

28(5), 101. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1296793497?

accountid=12085.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of

114

Management Review, 7(3), 418-28.

Wiio, O. A. (1976). Organizational communication: Interfacing systems. Paper

presented at the meeting of annual of the annual International Communication

Association, Portland, ME.

Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. S. (2013). Authentic leadership, performance, and job

satisfaction: The mediating role of empowerment. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

69(4), 947-959. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06089.x

Wong, C. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic

leadership and nurses' voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of

Nursing Management, 18, 889–900. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x

Xuelli, W., Lin, M., & Mian, Z. (2014). Transformational leadership and agency

workers’ organizational commitment: The mediating effect of organizational

justice and job characteristics. Social Behavior & Personality: An International

Journal, 42(1), 25-36. doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.25

Yin, S., Jiang, Z., & Jing, R. (2013). Research on organizational culture impact on

organizational adaptability: Taking east steam turbine as an example.

Management Science & Engineering, 7(3), 118-122. doi:10.3968/j.mse.

1913035X20130703.2713

Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal

of Social Issues, 57(4), 815–828.

Yoon, J. (2011). Young pilgrims of the 21st century. Korea Focus, 19(4), 32-33.

Yukl G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in trans-formational and

charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

115

Zhou, D., & Sun, X. (2010). Research on "job hopping" by migrant workers from the

countryside. Chinese Sociology & Anthropology, 43(2), 51-69. doi:10.2753/

CSA0009-4625430203

116

Appendix A

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire

Authors: (Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, & Fred O. Walumbwa, 2007).

Survey Permission Letter

MindGarden, Inc. invite@mindgarden.com

January 17, 2014 2:03 PM

Dear Matthew "Pete" Lester,

Mind Garden, Inc. has made available your Research Permission for the

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire summary report for you. You can go to your login

page on Transform http://transform.mindgarden.com/login/269725/264457 to view your

summary report. Your login email address is: lesterm@tntemple.edu

Sincerely,

The Mind Garden Team

117

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire Research Permission

Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, and Fred O. Walumbwa (2007).

Introduction: The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) has undergone

preliminary validation efforts to demonstrate that it is both reliable and construct valid.

Permission to use the ALQ free of charge and for a limited period is provided for

research purposes only.

This document contains: Conditions of Use for the Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire - Use of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire is subject to the

conditions outlined in this section.

Abstract of Research Project - A brief description of your research project.

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire - The form itself (rater and self) and instructions for

calculating scale scores.

118

Permission to Reproduce Sample Items

You cannot include an entire instrument in your thesis or dissertation; however,

you can use up to three sample items. Academic committees understand the requirements

of copyright and are satisfied with sample items for appendices and tables. For

customers needing permission to reproduce three sample items in a proposal, thesis, or

dissertation this section includes the permission form and reference information needed

to satisfy the requirements of an academic committee.

All Other Special Reproduction:

For any other special purposes requiring permissions for reproduction of this

instrument, please review the information at http://www.mindgarden.com/copyright.htm

or contact us at info@mindgarden.com.

119

Conditions of Use for the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ)

Before conducting your research:

1) You will submit the Research Permission for the Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire form.

2) While filling out the Research Permission for the Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire form you will need to provide additional information and agree to

additional conditions if...... you are planning to administer the ALQ online using a

survey company other than Mind Garden. ... you are planning to translate the

ALQ... you are planning to alter the ALQ.

3) You will electronically sign an agreement that you understand and agree to

comply with the conditions of use. This agreement is at the end of the Research

Permission for the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire form. Note: This pdf is

documentation that you have successfully fulfilled these three conditions.

While conducting your research:

1) You will only use the ALQ for non-commercial, unsupported research

purposes. Non-commercial research purposes mean that you will not now or in

the future directly or indirectly use the content for profit-seeking or other financial

or commercial motivations but rather will use the content solely to further

research that is purely academic or public-good driven. Your license to the

content is personal to you and is solely for such non-commercial research

purposes.

2) You will use the ALQ in its exact form without any changes to the instructions,

rating scale/anchors, or order of items. All of the items listed in the survey must

120

be used. (If you have indicated on your Research Permission for the Authentic

Leadership Questionnaire form that you plan to alter the ALQ and provided

details on the proposed alterations and the rationale behind those alterations, then

you may ignore this condition).

3) You will use the ALQ for only the specific study that has been requested.

There will be no further use of the ALQ without resubmitting the Research

Permission for the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire for additional permission

to use the ALQ with additional studies.

4) You will not provide the ALQ to any other researchers. They must submit

their own Research Permission for the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire form

for permission after the completion of your research: You will submit a

description of your completed research to Mind Garden. When you are ready to

complete this step, go here:

http://www.mindgarden.com/products/alq.htm#completed

121

Abstract of ALQ Research Project

Permission to use the ALQ is for the following research project:

Project title: Authentic Leadership: Relationship between Leader Communication

Quality and Organizational Commitment

Research focus: Authentic Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and

Communication Satisfaction

Key hypothesis: “How does authentic leadership practices and the leader’s quality of

communication relate to organizational commitment?”

Sample characteristics: Leadership Behaviors, Communication Leadership Practices

Research method: Quantitative Study

Organizational characteristics: Leadership Behaviors, Communication Satisfaction, Job

Retention, Leadership Practices, Organizational Commitment, Globalization, Employee

Engagement, and Job Switching.

Organization domain:

Other (write below)

Other domain: Organizational and Educational Leadership

Country/Countries: USA

I will be conducting this study in English: Yes

Language: English

Other language: You requested permission to reproduce the number of copies of the

ALQ stated below. The copyright holder has agreed to grant a license to reproduce this

number of copies of the ALQ within one year of the date listed on the cover page of this

document. Exact number of reproductions being requested for this research project: 300

122

You agreed to all the conditions of use outlined in this document by electronically

signing the Research Permission for the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire form.

Electronic signature: Matthew "Pete" Lester

Date of signature: January 16, 2014

Email: Mlester2@liberty.edu

123

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE: (ALQ Version 1.0 Rater)

Authors: (Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, & Fred O. Walumbwa, 2007).

INSTRUCTIONS: Circle one number in each question and rate your leader.

Not at all = 0 Once in a while = 1 Sometimes = 2

Fairly often = 3 Frequently, if not always = 4________________________________________________________________________

My Leader:

1. says exactly what he or she means 0 1 2 3 4

2. admits mistakes when they are made 0 1 2 3 4

3. encourages everyone to speak their mind 0 1 2 3 4

4. tells you the hard truth 0 1 2 3 4

5. displays emotions exactly in line with feelings 0 1 2 3 4

6. demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions 0 1 2 3 4

7. makes decisions based on his or her core values 0 1 2 3 4

8. asks you to take positions that support your core values 0 1 2 3 4

9. makes difficult decisions based on high standards of ethical conduct 0 1 2 3 4

10. solicits views that challenge his or her deeply held positions 0 1 2 3 4

11. analyzes relevant data before coming to a decision 0 1 2 3 4

12. listens carefully to different points of view before coming to conclusions 0 1 2 3 4

13. seeks feedback to improve interactions with others 0 1 2 3 4

14. accurately describes how others view his or her capabilities 0 1 2 3 4

15. knows when it is time to reevaluate his or her position on important issues 0 1 2 3 4

16. shows he or she understands how specific actions impact others 0 1 2 3 4

124

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire Subscales

Each subscale consists of these item numbers. Average the item value to get the

raw score for the scale.

Questions associated with each subscale listed below:

Transparency: Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Moral/Ethical: Questions 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Balanced Processing: Questions 10, 11, and 12.

Self Awareness: Questions 13, 14, 15, and 16.

125

17 January 2014 2:03 pm

To whom it may concern,

This letter is to grant permission for Matthew "Pete" Lester to use the following

copyright material for his research: Instrument: Authentic Leadership Questionnaire

(ALQ). Authors: Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, and Fred O. Walumbwa.

Copyright: 2007 by Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, and Fred O. Walumbwa

Three sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a

proposal, thesis, or dissertation. The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced

at any time in any published material.

Sincerely,

Mind Garden, Inc.

www.mindgarden.com

126

Appendix B

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)

Copyright by Downs and Hazen (1977); (Downs, 1990). Permission is granted to use

this survey for academic research (Downs & Hazen, 1977). Your answers are completely

confidential. Do not sign your name to this questionnaire. For this study, the research

elected to use only four factors of communication from the CSQ: Supervisory

Communication, Horizontal-Informal Communication, Subordinate Communication, and

Top Management Communication. Please circle your answer. Listed below are several

kinds of information often associated with a person's job. Please indicate how satisfied

you are with the amount and/or quality of each kind of information by placing the rank

number on the line to the left of the question.

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Supervisory Communication

1. Extent to which my supervisor listens and pays attention to me 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

2. Extent to which my supervisor offers guidance for solving job related problems

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

3. Extent to which my supervisor trusts me 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

4. Extent to which my supervisor is open to ideas 1--2—3—4--5--6--7

5. Extent to which the amount of supervision given to me is about right

1--2--3--4--5—6—7

Top Management Communication

127

6. Extent to which top management communicates openly and honestly with

organization members 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

7. Extent to which top management cares about organizational members

1—2---3—4—5—6---7

8. Extent to which top management listens to members and welcomes their idea

1—2—3—4—5—6—7

9. Extent to which top management communicates in a timely manner to keep staff

members informed 1—2—3—4—5—6--7

10. Extent to which top management is believable in its communication with members

1—2—3—4—5—6—7

Horizontal and Informal Communication

11. Extent to which the grapevine is active in our organization 1--2--3--4--5--7

12. Extent to which horizontal communication with other employees is accurate and free

flowing 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

13. Extent to which communication practices are adaptable to emergencies

1--2--3--4--5--7

14. Extent to which my work group is compatible 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

15. Extent to which informal communication is active and accurate 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

Communication Climate

16. Extent to which the organization’s communication motivates and stimulates an

enthusiasm for meetings and goals 1--2--3--4--5--6--7

17. Extent to which the people in my organization have great ability as communicators

1--2--3--4--5--6--7

128

18. Extent to which the organization’s communication makes me identify with it or feel a

vital part of it 1—2—3—4—5—6--7

19. Extent to which I receive in time the information needed to do my job

1—2—3—4—5—6--7

20. Extent to which conflicts are handled appropriately through proper communication

channels 1--2--3--4--5--6—7

Appendix C

129

Organizational Commitment Instrument (OCI)

Copyright J. Cook and T.D. Wall (1980).

Please circle one number for each question that comes closest to reflecting your

opinion about organizational commitment. Permission is granted for Academic Research.

Disagree very much = 1 Disagree moderately = 2 Disagree slightly = 3

Neutral = 4 Agree slightly = 5 Agree moderately = 6 Agree very much = 7________________________________________________________________________

1. I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is that I work for. 1—2—3—4—5—

6—7

2. I sometimes feel like leaving this employment for good. 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

3. I am not willing to put myself out just to help an organization. 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

4. Even if the firm were not doing too well financially, I would be reluctant to change to

another employer. 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

5. I feel myself to be part of the organization. 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

6. In my work I like to fell making some effort, not just for myself, but for the

organization as well. 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

7. The offer of a bit more money with another employer would be not seriously make me

think of changing my job. 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

8. I would not recommend a close friend to join our staff. 1—2---3—4—5—6—7

9. To know that my own work had made a contribution to be good of the organization

would be please me. 1—2—3—4—5—6—7

Copyright J. Cook and T.D. Wall (1980)

130

Organizational Commitment Instrument (OCI)

OCI Subscales: Organizational subscales and questions associated with subscales

within the OCI survey instrument.

Loyalty - Q2, Q4, and Q7.

Identification - Q1, Q5, and Q8.

Involvement - Q3, Q6, and Q9.

131

Appendix D

Demographic Questionnaire

Please circle one item per question. This demographic study is to be completed

by the employee. This information pertains to the employee.

1. What is your age?

1. 16 – 25

2. 26 – 35

3. 36 – 45

4. 46 – 55

5. 56 or older

2. What is your gender?

1. Male

2. Female

3. What is your highest level of education?

1. Still in high school

2. High school graduate

3. Some college

4. Two year degree

132

5. Graduate of professional degree

4. How many years have your worked for this organization (part-time or full-time)?

1. Less than a year

2. 1 – 4 years

3. 5 – 10 years

4. 11 or more years

5. What is your marital status?

1. Single

2. Married

3. Divorced

133

Appendix E

Letter to Organizational Leaders

April 12, 2014

Dear Organizational Leader,

I am a doctoral candidate at Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga,

Tennessee, conducting research on leadership. At the completion of this project, I expect

to be awarded Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Leadership. The purpose of this study is

to compare how authentic leadership practices and a leader’s communication relate to the

followers’ perception of organizational commitment.

Participation in this study is voluntary and strictly confidential. I do not need the

names of any participants or any other information about participants. I do not mention

the name of the organization or the leader in this research. Your participation will

involve completing three surveys and one demographic questionnaire. The process will

take less than 10 minutes to complete. This data will benefit the TTU Leadership

Program as well as the researcher. The research is expected to contribute significantly to

leadership studies, communications, and organizational studies. Thank you for your

time.

Please feel free to direct any questions to Pete Lester, the Principal Researcher at

phone xxx- xxx-xxxx or email: was lesterm@tntemple.com or contact TTU Ph.D.

program. Now, Mlester2@liberty.edu Researcher’s Name: Pete Lester, a Ph.D.

Candidate at Tennessee Temple University. Please circle one item:

(I would like to participate) or (I do not wish to participate).

Thank you for this opportunity.

134

Appendix F

Raw Data

Communication Satisfaction

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS111 6 5 6 5 6 7 6 6 6 6 52 2 1 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 33 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 64 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 55 2 2 5 4 3 3 2 4 4 46 5 4 4 3 4 2 2 1 4 3 47 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 6 6 68 4 4 4 5 6 5 6 4 5 5 39 1 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 511 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 5 5 612 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 4 5 6 613 3 3 4 3 5 3 4 4 5 3 614 6 6 6 5 6 4 7 6 4 5 215 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 4 4 216 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 117 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 418 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 419 3 4 5 5 4 5 6 5 4 3 420 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 521 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 522 5 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 523 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 6 6 7 524 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 625 6 6 6 6 6 5 7 6 5 6 626 3 1 2 2 2 5 2 2 3 3 327 4 3 3 3 7 3 3 2 4 3 628 5 5 5 4 6 5 6 4 6 5 629 4 5 4 3 6 4 3 3 6 4 530 4 4 4 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 531 5 3 3 3 2 3 5 3 3 3 532 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 733 2 2 1 1 2 5 1 1 4 4 434 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 4 5 4 535 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 236 7 7 6 7 5 5 6 6 7 6 437 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4

135

38 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 5 639 7 6 7 6 6 3 3 2 6 6 740 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS1141 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 4 4 442 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 343 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 344 3 3 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 345 4 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 346 6 5 7 6 6 6 6 7 6 5 647 4 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 4 3 448 3 3 3 3 2 4 1 3 3 3 349 4 5 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 5 250 3 4 4 4 5 5 1 3 3 3 351 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 352 5 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 553 4 4 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 3 154 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 755 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 456 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 757 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 458 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 659 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 660 4 6 1 1 1 5 3 2 3 4 461 4 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 162 3 4 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 463 4 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 4 1 464 4 4 5 2 4 4 4 2 5 4 565 6 6 6 4 6 4 5 3 6 4 666 3 3 5 2 6 2 2 2 4 2 567 2 3 5 1 6 2 2 2 5 2 468 2 5 5 2 6 2 2 1 5 2 569 3 5 3 5 5 2 1 1 5 2 670 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 671 1 2 2 1 5 1 1 1 5 3 772 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 6 2 773 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 2 674 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 675 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 5 3 576 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 577 3 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 5 3 3

136

78 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 4 3 579 3 3 3 1 3 2 7 2 3 3 3

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS1180 3 4 5 2 5 2 2 2 3 3 381 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 682 5 5 4 6 3 5 6 6 6 6 583 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 484 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 285 4 4 5 5 5 7 4 2 5 5 486 5 4 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 5 587 7 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 5 588 5 7 5 5 4 6 7 4 6 5 789 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 590 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 291 4 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 692 6 6 5 5 3 3 7 7 7 7 793 6 7 5 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 594 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 695 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 196 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 597 2 5 4 6 4 7 7 5 2 6 498 5 5 6 6 5 7 4 5 4 5 699 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 6 6 5100 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 4 4101 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 4102 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 4 3103 3 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 4 3 2104 5 4 2 4 4 4 1 2 3 3 2105 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 5 4 3106 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 3107 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4108 4 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 3109 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 2110 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 3 3111 4 4 1 2 2 4 1 1 3 3 3112 2 4 2 3 1 4 1 2 3 3 3113 4 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 4 2 2114 3 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 3 5115 4 4 2 5 3 3 4 3 3 4 6116 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 5 4 7117 4 5 3 2 3 3 1 3 4 4 2

137

118 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 5 3 3

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11119 6 4 2 2 3 5 3 3 4 4 4120 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 6 4 3 4121 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 4 4 3122 4 5 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 4 3123 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 2124 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 4125 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 3 4 4 4126 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4127 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 2128 6 5 4 3 5 5 4 3 4 4 5129 3 4 5 3 5 4 3 3 6 4 5130 4 5 6 2 5 3 3 6 6 3 5131 4 5 6 3 3 3 6 3 6 3 5132 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 3 6 3 4133 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 3 6 3 4134 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 3 6 3 4135 6 6 6 3 6 3 4 4 5 4 5136 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5137 3 3 5 1 4 3 1 2 3 3 5138 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3139 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 3 3 3140 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3141 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 4142 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4143 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1144 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2145 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1146 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1147 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 2148 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 2149 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3150 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 4151 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 4152 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 1 6 4 6153 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 4154 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 4155 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 3156 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2157 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

138

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11158 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 2 4159 3 5 5 2 3 3 1 1 7 4 5160 5 3 5 2 4 5 2 3 6 5 7161 6 6 6 2 6 3 3 3 5 4 5162 5 5 5 2 6 4 4 2 6 3 6163 5 3 6 2 5 4 4 4 6 5 6164 6 6 6 4 6 6 5 5 6 5 6165 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 6 4 6166 3 6 6 6 5 6 4 5 4 6 5167 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 6168 5 3 3 2 5 2 3 2 5 3 5169 3 6 3 2 4 3 2 3 5 2 5170 4 3 6 5 3 3 2 2 7 3 7171 5 5 5 3 1 3 2 1 5 3 4172 5 5 6 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5173 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 3174 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 3175 4 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3176 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 3 4 2 4177 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3178 4 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3179 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3180 4 4 4 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 3181 3 3 5 2 4 4 2 2 5 3 4182 3 2 5 3 5 5 1 3 3 4 7183 2 5 7 2 7 3 2 1 4 4 5184 5 5 3 2 4 3 1 2 6 5 5185 2 3 1 1 3 4 1 1 5 2 3186 3 2 4 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 3187 3 2 4 1 3 3 2 1 7 4 4188 2 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2189 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2190 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3191 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 3 3192 2 5 1 1 1 3 1 2 5 2 2193 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 5194 3 3 3 1 3 4 2 2 3 3 5195 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3196 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 5 3 4

139

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11197 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 3198 5 4 1 2 5 3 3 3 4 3 4199 3 6 5 3 3 3 2 2 6 5 5200 2 2 2 2 1 4 1 1 7 6 6201 5 5 5 3 7 7 3 3 7 6 6202 3 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4203 5 5 7 3 1 7 1 2 6 2 2204 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 3 5205 2 4 7 1 5 4 1 3 4 5 5206 3 5 5 1 5 5 2 2 4 4 4207 3 3 1 1 2 5 1 3 4 4 5208 3 3 6 2 3 5 1 4 2 5 5209 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 3210 4 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 5 5211 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2212 5 5 1 1 1 4 1 3 5 4 4213 5 5 2 1 4 2 1 3 4 4 3214 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 1215 3 3 5 5 4 3 2 2 5 3 4216 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 2217 4 3 2 2 4 4 1 1 4 2 2218 3 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 2 2 4219 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 5 2 4220 3 5 3 2 4 4 2 4 5 3 5221 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 2 3 3 2222 5 5 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1223 6 6 6 5 4 2 2 4 3 3 3224 5 5 5 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 3225 4 5 1 1 5 2 2 3 3 3 3226 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 5 3 5227 4 4 3 3 5 4 2 1 5 2 3228 2 3 3 1 3 5 3 3 5 5 5229 3 2 3 2 5 5 3 3 4 3 5230 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 5 5231 4 3 3 2 1 4 2 2 5 3 5232 3 4 1 3 3 5 3 2 6 5 5233 3 3 1 3 3 5 1 3 6 4 5234 5 6 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 1235 3 3 3 2 4 5 2 2 2 5 2

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11

140

236 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 2 3 5237 4 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 4 3 4238 3 3 5 3 5 3 1 2 5 4 5239 6 5 6 4 6 4 4 4 6 4 5240 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5241 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 6 4 6242 6 5 6 4 6 4 4 4 6 5 5243 6 6 6 4 6 4 5 3 6 4 6244 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 6 4 5245 5 5 5 2 5 3 4 3 6 4 5246 6 6 6 3 6 3 3 3 6 4 5247 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 6 3 5248 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 6 4 5249 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 6 4 5250 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 6 4 5251 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 6 4 5252 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 6 4 5253 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 6 4 6254 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 6 4 5255 3 4 4 3 5 4 2 1 5 4 5256 3 5 5 2 3 4 5 4 5 5 5257 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 6 7 7 6258 6 6 7 6 5 7 5 7 7 7 7259 7 7 5 6 6 5 5 5 7 7 7260 5 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 4261 6 7 5 5 5 5 7 5 4 5 5262 3 3 1 1 3 6 2 2 5 5 3263 3 3 1 1 1 5 2 1 5 5 3264 3 3 3 1 3 5 2 2 5 5 3265 3 3 3 1 3 5 2 2 5 5 3266 7 6 4 1 2 5 2 1 5 5 3267 3 3 1 1 3 5 1 2 5 4 2268 4 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 3 5 3269 4 4 3 3 1 5 1 1 3 4 3270 3 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 1 1271 5 5 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 4272 5 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 3273 3 5 4 3 5 3 3 3 2 2 2274 5 5 3 1 4 5 2 1 5 3 3

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11275 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 5 3 4

141

276 4 5 5 3 3 4 1 3 5 4 7277 5 5 3 3 5 5 2 2 2 3 3278 3 3 2 2 1 4 3 3 3 3 4279 4 4 2 2 3 4 2 5 4 3 3280 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 2281 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 2 4282 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3283 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4284 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2285 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 4286 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 4 2 2287 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 3288 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 4 3 5 5289 5 3 4 5 5 2 2 2 4 3 2290 4 5 2 2 4 3 2 1 3 4 4291 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3292 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 4 4 2293 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3294 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3295 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 2296 3 2 2 1 3 4 2 1 4 2 4297 3 3 1 1 1 4 1 3 4 4 2298 4 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 4 3299 2 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2300 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 4 4 5Mean 3.75 3.87 3.51 2.86 3.64 3.63 2.81 2.85 4.36 3.66 4.08s.d. 1.60 1.59 1.88 1.79 1.85 1.61 1.91 1.74 1.45 1.43 1.49

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.1 6 6 7 6 5 6 6 7 6 5.71 1.232 4 6 7 6 5 5 4 2 3 3.76 1.513 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 3 5 6.05 1.194 6 7 1 2 3 4 2 5 6 3.90 1.875 2 3 6 4 3 3 1 3 2 3.25 1.256 4 5 5 3 2 2 2 3 2 3.33 1.327 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5.76 0.548 4 6 7 5 4 3 2 4 3 4.62 1.43

142

9 5 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5.90 1.4811 3 5 6 5 4 3 5 6 5 4.90 1.7012 6 6 6 6 3 4 5 5 5 5.43 1.7213 6 6 6 6 3 5 5 5 3 4.81 2.2314 2 5 2 4 6 5 5 4 4 5.14 2.4815 3 5 2 4 5 4 5 4 4 4.71 2.5516 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2.05 3.2517 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6.90 2.4318 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6.81 2.6619 5 6 3 2 2 2 5 5 4 4.81 3.4720 5 5 6 5 6 5 4 5 5 6.05 3.2521 5 5 6 5 6 5 4 5 5 6.10 3.4622 5 5 6 5 6 5 4 5 5 6.10 3.6923 5 6 7 6 5 5 6 6 6 6.90 3.7724 5 5 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 6.24 4.1125 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 6.52 4.2726 7 7 7 6 1 2 2 3 3 4.38 5.3127 6 4 5 5 3 3 3 4 2 4.90 5.2328 5 6 7 6 4 5 5 5 4 6.29 5.0429 5 5 5 5 3 6 5 5 3 5.62 5.4530 5 5 6 5 3 5 4 5 3 5.52 5.6831 5 5 6 5 3 6 3 3 5 5.24 6.0232 5 7 7 7 5 7 5 6 5 5.29 6.5533 5 7 7 6 3 4 3 2 2 4.71 6.7534 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6.48 6.3835 3 5 5 5 2 4 3 3 3 4.38 7.1136 6 7 6 6 6 6 5 7 6 7.48 6.5837 7 7 4 7 6 4 4 6 7 7.76 6.8038 6 7 7 7 7 7 5 6 6 7.95 6.9239 7 7 7 7 5 6 6 2 6 7.19 7.4740 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7.62 7.42

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.41 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5.24 8.2742 5 6 6 5 3 3 3 3 3 5.33 8.4843 5 7 5 5 2 3 3 3 3 5.33 8.7244 5 7 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 5.43 8.9345 5 7 6 7 2 4 3 2 3 5.57 9.1646 6 6 7 6 5 7 6 6 6 7.95 8.7447 6 7 7 5 2 4 3 4 3 5.95 9.5248 5 7 4 4 1 2 4 3 3 5.33 9.8649 5 7 4 5 2 4 3 4 2 5.76 9.99

143

50 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 5.48 10.3151 2 7 6 6 3 4 3 4 3 5.14 10.6652 4 7 6 6 2 3 1 4 3 5.57 10.7853 6 7 5 6 2 3 3 2 3 5.52 11.0154 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9.24 10.2655 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 9.10 10.5456 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9.33 10.6957 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9.24 10.9658 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8.48 11.3559 5 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 7 9.00 11.4760 6 7 5 4 1 1 2 2 3 5.95 12.5261 5 7 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 5.67 12.8062 4 6 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 6.05 12.8763 6 5 5 2 4 1 3 2 2 5.67 13.2264 5 5 6 6 3 5 5 5 2 7.10 13.0965 6 6 6 5 3 6 4 5 4 7.90 13.1366 5 5 5 5 2 6 4 6 2 6.76 13.6667 4 4 4 5 1 3 4 4 1 6.24 14.0068 5 4 5 5 2 5 3 4 2 6.67 14.1469 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 5 5 7.43 14.2170 2 7 5 5 1 5 1 6 2 5.90 14.8371 5 7 6 6 2 6 1 6 4 6.81 14.8872 4 6 5 5 2 5 1 3 2 6.33 15.1773 4 6 3 3 1 4 2 2 1 5.95 15.4474 5 6 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 6.62 15.5175 5 7 6 6 3 6 4 5 3 7.19 15.6376 5 7 7 6 2 7 3 5 2 7.10 15.9077 3 7 5 3 3 6 3 5 2 7.00 16.1078 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 2 6.67 16.4079 5 5 5 5 2 5 3 5 3 7.14 16.53

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.80 6 7 7 5 2 7 4 5 4 7.67 16.6681 4 5 6 5 5 4 4 4 5 8.14 16.7182 6 7 7 6 7 6 5 5 7 9.29 16.6983 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 7.95 17.2184 5 5 7 6 6 3 7 7 4 9.43 17.1485 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 6 8.62 17.5386 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 9.76 17.4987 7 7 7 4 4 4 3 3 7 9.43 17.8388 5 6 4 7 3 5 5 6 4 9.24 18.0889 6 6 6 5 5 6 4 6 6 9.90 18.15

144

90 2 7 6 6 2 2 3 3 3 7.05 19.0891 4 6 5 6 5 7 7 5 7 9.62 18.6792 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 10.29 18.7693 6 7 4 5 6 5 6 6 7 10.10 19.0194 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 10.62 19.1195 4 6 5 5 3 3 3 2 1 7.43 20.1096 5 4 5 4 2 3 4 3 3 7.48 20.3197 3 6 4 5 5 4 3 5 6 9.05 20.2098 7 7 5 5 5 4 5 6 6 9.81 20.2399 6 6 7 7 7 4 5 5 6 10.57 20.29100 5 7 5 5 1 4 3 3 3 7.71 21.21101 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 7.14 21.52102 4 6 5 5 2 2 3 2 2 7.38 21.73103 5 7 5 6 3 3 2 4 3 7.95 21.84104 4 6 4 3 1 4 2 2 2 7.90 22.06105 6 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 7.57 22.36106 4 5 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 7.43 22.62107 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 9.48 22.35108 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 7.48 23.05109 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 7.48 23.27110 5 5 5 5 2 2 4 3 3 8.48 23.28111 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 3 1 7.81 23.67112 2 5 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 7.81 23.90113 5 5 5 4 2 3 3 3 3 8.19 24.04114 4 6 4 4 2 2 3 3 3 8.19 24.28115 5 6 4 1 4 3 3 2 2 8.86 24.35116 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 3 2 8.86 24.59117 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 8.62 24.85118 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 8.67 25.06

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.119 5 7 7 6 3 3 4 3 4 9.57 25.11120 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 9.00 25.45121 4 3 6 6 3 5 3 4 3 9.00 25.69122 3 6 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 9.24 25.85123 3 5 4 4 1 2 3 4 4 8.86 26.17124 4 3 3 2 3 4 5 4 4 8.90 26.39125 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 5 9.67 26.44126 5 3 5 3 3 5 4 3 4 9.43 26.72127 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 10.14 26.79128 5 5 5 4 4 7 5 4 4 10.43 26.95129 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 6 3 10.24 27.23

145

130 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 3 10.33 27.44131 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 6 3 10.38 27.66132 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 10.38 27.88133 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 10.43 28.10134 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 10.48 28.32135 5 6 5 5 4 4 5 6 3 10.95 28.44136 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 10.81 28.69137 5 7 5 3 1 6 2 6 2 9.86 29.18138 4 6 5 4 2 5 2 4 2 9.05 29.59139 5 7 6 3 2 5 2 5 1 9.48 29.73140 6 7 6 5 2 5 2 4 1 9.33 30.00141 5 6 6 5 2 7 3 6 1 9.67 30.17142 5 6 7 6 2 7 2 3 1 9.48 30.44143 3 7 6 6 1 6 2 2 1 9.14 30.74144 7 7 5 5 1 3 2 4 1 9.29 30.93145 2 6 6 4 1 4 2 3 1 9.35 31.97146 3 6 6 6 1 4 1 3 1 9.24 31.38147 3 7 5 4 2 4 1 3 1 9.24 31.61148 5 6 5 5 1 3 2 3 1 9.43 31.79149 5 6 4 5 1 5 2 4 1 9.57 31.99150 5 5 5 4 2 4 1 3 1 9.57 32.21151 5 4 5 4 1 3 3 3 1 9.76 32.38152 6 7 7 5 2 6 3 5 2 11.05 32.35153 4 7 7 7 2 6 2 5 1 10.43 32.74154 5 7 7 6 1 5 1 3 2 10.33 32.97155 4 6 7 6 1 2 2 2 2 9.90 33.29156 5 6 6 6 2 3 2 3 1 10.10 33.47157 4 7 7 7 2 2 2 3 2 9.90 33.77

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.158 6 6 7 7 1 2 2 3 1 10.29 33.91159 7 7 7 5 2 4 3 5 4 11.52 33.84160 4 5 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 11.57 34.03161 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 12.05 34.15162 6 4 6 6 2 6 4 6 4 12.10 34.38163 6 6 6 6 2 6 2 6 2 12.14 34.60164 6 6 6 6 3 4 4 6 3 12.81 34.66165 6 6 6 6 3 4 5 6 3 12.43 34.98166 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 5 13.00 35.07167 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 5 13.24 35.23168 6 6 4 5 1 3 3 5 3 11.52 35.88169 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 1 11.33 36.15

146

170 7 7 6 5 2 3 4 5 1 12.14 36.22171 5 5 6 6 3 3 3 4 2 11.67 36.54172 5 7 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 12.71 36.51173 5 5 3 2 2 2 5 5 3 11.95 36.92174 3 5 5 5 3 4 2 2 1 10.71 37.44175 2 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 10.81 37.63176 3 3 5 3 1 2 3 3 3 11.05 37.81177 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 11.29 37.98178 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 10.95 38.29179 1 2 3 4 1 3 4 4 3 10.62 38.60180 2 5 4 4 3 2 4 2 3 11.43 38.64181 6 7 6 6 2 3 3 5 3 12.33 38.68182 6 7 4 5 2 4 4 5 3 12.52 38.86183 7 7 6 7 2 5 5 5 3 12.95 39.01184 7 6 6 7 2 3 3 6 4 12.81 39.26185 3 7 5 3 2 3 2 4 3 11.57 39.77186 5 6 7 4 2 3 3 5 3 11.95 39.91187 6 7 7 5 1 3 4 5 3 12.48 40.03188 3 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 11.14 40.54189 3 5 6 5 2 3 2 2 1 11.14 40.78190 3 5 7 5 1 3 1 2 2 11.86 40.84191 5 5 6 3 1 2 1 2 1 11.24 41.22192 3 5 7 3 2 2 3 3 3 11.81 41.32193 3 3 6 5 3 3 3 4 1 12.05 41.48194 2 5 5 3 2 4 4 5 3 12.33 41.64195 4 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 1 11.81 41.99196 5 5 5 4 1 4 3 4 3 12.29 42.12

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.197 4 4 4 4 1 4 2 2 2 11.76 42.46198 5 7 6 4 3 4 3 7 3 13.19 42.37199 7 7 7 6 3 4 4 6 4 13.81 42.46200 6 7 6 6 1 5 4 5 1 13.10 42.88201 6 7 5 7 3 3 5 5 5 14.48 42.76202 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 7 4 13.10 43.30203 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 12.62 43.66204 6 7 6 6 1 4 2 4 1 12.57 43.91205 1 6 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 12.67 44.11206 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 12.90 44.26207 7 6 5 5 2 3 3 3 1 13.05 44.47208 5 6 5 5 3 4 3 3 2 13.48 44.59209 4 5 5 4 2 2 3 5 3 12.57 45.03

147

210 5 5 5 5 2 4 4 5 2 13.29 45.10211 4 6 5 4 2 2 2 3 1 12.76 45.44212 4 7 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 13.10 45.61213 4 6 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 13.57 45.71214 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 12.14 46.26215 3 5 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 13.19 46.26216 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 5 3 12.38 46.67217 4 5 4 4 2 3 1 2 2 13.00 46.76218 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 3 3 13.05 46.97219 5 5 5 5 3 4 2 3 2 13.33 47.14220 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 13.81 47.26221 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 13.95 47.45222 1 3 4 4 2 3 5 4 5 13.19 47.87223 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 13.76 47.96224 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 4 5 14.10 48.10225 4 7 5 3 3 3 1 4 7 14.00 48.38226 5 3 3 3 1 3 1 6 5 13.57 48.70227 4 3 4 4 1 2 3 1 3 13.71 48.88228 3 7 5 3 4 3 3 3 4 14.33 48.97229 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 5 5 14.62 49.13230 2 7 5 5 3 3 3 2 4 13.76 49.58231 5 7 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 14.62 49.60232 5 7 6 5 3 5 2 5 7 15.10 49.73233 7 7 7 7 4 5 3 5 6 15.29 49.92234 5 5 5 5 3 4 2 5 5 14.67 50.27235 5 6 4 5 2 3 4 5 5 14.62 50.51

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.236 4 5 5 6 5 5 3 5 2 15.19 50.61237 6 7 7 5 2 4 3 4 3 15.00 50.89238 5 6 5 5 3 4 3 5 3 15.05 51.10239 5 6 6 6 4 5 4 6 4 16.14 51.07240 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 15.90 51.35241 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 6 4 16.10 51.54242 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 4 16.14 51.76243 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 3 16.10 52.00244 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 2 15.71 52.32245 5 5 5 5 2 2 5 6 3 15.71 52.55246 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 6 3 16.05 52.70247 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 6 3 16.10 52.91248 5 5 5 5 4 6 4 6 4 16.29 53.10249 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 6 4 16.29 53.33

148

250 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 16.29 53.55251 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 4 16.33 53.77252 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 4 16.43 53.98253 5 5 6 5 4 4 6 6 4 16.76 54.13254 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 6 4 16.29 54.47255 5 6 5 4 2 7 4 6 4 16.10 54.76256 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 6 16.48 54.89257 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 5 7 17.86 54.80258 7 7 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 18.43 54.90259 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 17.86 55.26260 7 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 17.14 55.65261 5 7 5 7 3 5 5 6 6 17.57 55.79262 6 4 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 15.76 56.44263 6 7 5 5 3 3 5 4 5 16.00 56.62264 5 7 5 5 3 3 3 5 4 16.14 56.81265 5 3 3 5 1 1 3 5 3 15.67 57.15266 3 5 3 5 1 4 3 5 2 16.10 57.29267 5 7 5 4 1 4 3 4 5 15.95 57.55268 3 3 3 3 1 4 1 5 3 15.52 57.86269 3 4 4 3 1 2 2 5 3 15.62 58.07270 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 4 15.76 58.27271 5 5 5 5 2 3 1 3 2 16.10 58.42272 4 5 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 16.14 58.63273 2 5 3 3 1 3 4 4 1 15.90 58.92274 5 7 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 16.86 58.94

ID CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Mean s.d.275 5 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 6 17.00 59.12276 5 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 17.67 59.21277 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 16.90 59.61278 5 5 5 5 2 3 2 4 5 16.43 59.95279 5 7 5 5 1 3 3 3 3 16.67 60.12280 4 6 5 5 3 3 2 3 3 16.00 60.51281 5 6 5 5 2 3 2 3 2 16.05 60.73282 3 5 5 5 2 3 3 2 2 16.00 60.96283 3 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 15.33 61.35284 3 5 4 4 2 2 2 5 2 15.81 61.46285 4 5 5 4 1 3 3 4 2 16.05 61.64286 3 5 4 3 2 2 1 4 3 16.05 61.86287 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 17.57 61.74288 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 18.24 61.81289 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 16.62 62.42

149

290 5 4 3 3 2 1 4 3 2 16.71 62.63291 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 3 1 15.90 63.04292 4 7 4 3 1 2 2 3 1 16.48 63.15293 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 16.10 63.45294 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 16.19 63.66295 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 16.38 63.84296 3 7 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 16.71 64.01297 2 6 4 3 1 3 4 3 2 16.76 64.22298 4 6 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 17.10 64.38299 4 7 5 4 3 3 3 2 3 16.90 64.65300 2 7 5 4 2 4 3 3 2 17.19 64.82Mean 4.62 5.51 5.06 4.72 2.92 3.92 3.51 4.20 3.37 10.89 0.74s.d. 1.35 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.56 1.50 1.42 1.46 1.68 1.56 0.20

Organizational Commitment

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.1 7 1 2 7 6 7 7 1 6 4.89 2.712 5 7 5 1 4 6 3 7 7 5.00 2.063 6 7 4 1 6 5 1 4 5 4.33 2.124 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 1 3.89 2.265 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 5 5 4.00 1.126 3 2 5 2 2 5 2 5 5 3.44 1.517 5 4 2 4 6 6 4 2 7 4.44 1.748 7 5 4 5 7 7 4 2 6 5.22 1.729 7 5 4 5 7 7 5 2 7 5.44 1.7411 6 5 2 6 6 6 6 4 7 5.33 1.5012 5 5 2 5 5 6 5 4 7 4.89 1.3613 5 5 4 6 6 6 4 4 7 5.22 1.0914 6 5 2 5 6 6 4 4 6 4.89 1.3615 6 5 2 5 5 6 3 4 6 4.67 1.4116 1 6 6 2 2 5 1 7 5 3.89 2.3717 7 2 1 1 6 6 2 1 6 3.56 2.6018 7 2 1 1 6 6 2 1 6 3.56 2.6019 7 2 1 1 6 6 2 1 6 3.56 2.6020 1 1 1 7 6 7 7 2 7 4.33 2.9621 1 1 1 7 6 7 7 2 7 4.33 2.9622 7 1 1 7 6 7 7 2 7 5.00 2.7823 7 2 1 6 7 7 5 1 7 4.78 2.6824 5 6 3 1 5 6 1 6 6 4.33 2.1225 5 6 5 1 5 6 1 6 6 4.56 2.0726 3 7 1 1 3 7 1 6 6 3.89 2.62

150

27 5 3 2 4 5 6 3 3 7 4.22 1.6428 7 2 2 5 6 6 3 4 6 4.56 1.8829 6 2 2 5 5 6 6 4 7 4.78 1.7930 5 4 5 4 5 6 4 3 7 4.78 1.2031 5 5 3 2 5 7 2 5 7 4.56 1.8832 6 5 7 3 5 7 1 3 7 4.89 2.1533 3 7 1 1 1 7 1 5 2 3.11 2.5734 6 5 2 3 5 6 2 4 6 4.33 1.6635 3 7 1 3 3 6 1 5 6 3.89 2.2036 6 1 4 3 4 6 4 1 5 3.78 1.8637 7 3 1 3 7 7 3 3 7 4.56 2.4038 7 1 4 4 5 6 5 4 5 4.56 1.6739 5 5 4 2 6 6 4 1 6 4.33 1.8040 6 2 1 6 6 6 5 1 6 4.33 2.29

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.41 3 7 2 2 4 7 1 6 7 4.33 2.4542 4 6 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 2.67 1.5843 3 3 1 1 3 7 2 2 7 3.22 2.2844 3 3 3 2 2 7 2 3 7 3.56 2.0145 3 6 1 3 3 7 3 2 7 3.89 2.2046 6 1 1 4 6 6 6 1 6 4.11 2.4247 3 4 1 2 3 7 1 3 7 3.44 2.2448 4 3 1 1 1 7 2 2 7 3.11 2.4249 2 2 1 1 3 7 3 3 7 3.22 2.2850 3 3 1 2 3 6 2 1 6 3.00 1.8751 2 7 1 1 3 7 2 2 7 3.56 2.6552 2 3 2 3 1 5 2 1 5 2.67 1.5053 2 7 1 1 4 3 1 1 7 3.00 2.5054 7 1 1 4 7 7 4 1 7 4.33 2.7855 7 1 7 7 7 7 7 1 7 5.67 2.6556 7 1 1 7 7 7 7 4 7 5.33 2.6557 7 1 1 7 7 7 7 1 7 5.00 3.0058 6 1 1 4 7 7 3 1 7 4.11 2.7159 7 1 1 5 7 7 4 1 7 4.44 2.7960 3 6 2 2 2 7 3 2 7 3.78 2.2261 4 7 1 2 2 7 1 7 6 4.11 2.6762 3 7 1 3 2 2 7 1 7 3.67 2.6063 3 7 1 1 3 7 1 7 7 4.11 2.8564 5 4 2 4 5 6 4 4 6 4.44 1.2465 5 2 2 5 5 6 5 5 7 4.67 1.6666 5 4 2 2 5 6 4 6 6 4.44 1.59

151

67 5 4 1 2 4 7 3 4 7 4.11 2.0368 4 4 2 2 4 7 3 4 7 4.11 1.8369 5 7 5 1 5 5 1 3 7 4.33 2.2470 2 7 7 1 2 6 7 3 7 4.67 2.6071 2 7 3 1 2 7 1 2 7 3.56 2.6572 3 7 2 1 2 7 1 6 7 4.00 2.6973 2 7 7 1 1 7 7 7 7 5.11 2.8574 3 2 6 3 2 7 1 3 7 3.78 2.2875 3 3 2 3 2 7 1 2 7 3.33 2.1876 3 2 2 1 1 7 2 6 7 3.44 2.5177 3 6 3 2 2 7 5 3 6 4.11 1.9078 3 1 5 7 3 7 3 3 6 4.22 2.1179 3 6 6 2 2 7 2 2 7 4.11 2.32

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.80 4 6 5 3 1 7 1 2 7 4.00 2.4081 7 5 1 5 4 5 5 4 6 4.67 1.6682 7 4 5 7 7 7 7 1 7 5.78 2.1183 6 2 1 5 5 5 3 5 5 4.11 1.6984 7 1 3 5 7 2 1 1 5 3.56 2.5185 5 5 6 6 6 6 4 5 4 5.22 0.8386 7 7 7 1 5 5 1 7 7 5.22 2.5487 7 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 4.00 1.5888 6 4 5 4 6 6 4 6 5 5.11 0.9389 7 4 7 2 6 6 1 4 5 4.67 2.1290 3 7 1 1 2 7 3 6 7 4.11 2.6291 7 4 4 6 5 5 4 6 6 5.22 1.0992 7 1 7 7 7 7 1 1 7 5.00 3.0093 5 2 1 3 6 6 3 2 6 3.78 1.9994 6 4 3 5 6 4 4 4 2 4.22 1.3095 3 6 1 2 2 7 5 6 6 4.22 2.2296 4 7 1 2 2 7 1 6 6 4.00 2.5597 3 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 6 4.44 1.0198 6 5 5 6 6 7 7 5 5 5.78 0.8399 5 4 7 1 4 6 7 6 4 4.89 1.90100 3 7 1 1 2 7 1 5 7 3.78 2.73101 3 2 2 1 2 7 1 5 7 3.33 2.40102 3 7 2 2 3 7 1 5 7 4.11 2.42103 3 7 1 2 2 7 1 6 7 4.00 2.69104 3 6 1 1 4 7 2 7 7 4.22 2.59105 7 1 2 2 6 2 7 7 4 4.22 2.54106 3 7 1 1 2 7 4 7 7 4.33 2.69

152

107 6 6 1 1 5 5 5 5 4 4.22 1.92108 3 7 2 2 2 7 2 7 7 4.33 2.55109 3 7 2 2 2 5 2 5 5 3.67 1.87110 2 7 7 1 2 7 1 5 7 4.33 2.78111 4 7 1 1 4 7 1 7 7 4.33 2.78112 4 7 1 2 1 7 1 6 6 3.89 2.67113 4 6 1 1 3 7 1 7 7 4.11 2.71114 2 7 1 7 3 7 3 7 7 4.89 2.57115 3 6 2 2 4 7 2 6 6 4.22 2.05116 4 7 1 2 2 6 2 6 6 4.00 2.29117 4 6 2 3 1 3 2 6 6 3.67 1.94118 3 5 2 2 3 6 4 6 6 4.11 1.69

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.119 4 6 2 3 3 6 3 5 6 4.22 1.56120 3 4 3 2 3 3 5 4 4 3.44 0.88121 4 6 2 2 3 7 2 5 7 4.22 2.11122 5 6 2 2 3 7 2 5 7 4.33 2.12123 4 6 1 1 3 6 3 5 6 3.89 2.03124 4 7 1 2 3 6 1 6 6 4.00 2.35125 4 5 5 2 2 4 6 3 5 4.00 1.41126 7 3 1 1 5 2 5 5 5 3.78 2.11127 1 7 1 1 1 6 1 6 6 3.33 2.78128 4 5 1 1 1 6 5 6 6 3.89 2.26129 5 4 2 4 5 5 4 4 6 4.33 1.12130 4 4 3 4 5 6 4 4 6 4.44 1.01131 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 3 3 3.89 0.78132 4 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 6 4.22 0.97133 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 6 4.33 0.87134 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 6 4.33 0.87135 6 3 3 4 6 6 4 3 6 4.56 1.42136 6 2 2 4 5 6 4 3 6 4.22 1.64137 3 1 6 2 2 6 1 1 7 3.22 2.44138 3 7 7 1 1 7 1 1 7 3.89 3.02139 2 7 5 1 2 6 1 7 7 4.22 2.68140 3 6 3 1 5 7 3 3 7 4.22 2.11141 2 6 6 1 1 7 1 7 7 4.22 2.86142 3 7 6 2 1 7 1 3 7 4.11 2.62143 1 7 7 1 2 7 1 6 7 4.33 2.96144 2 7 7 1 1 7 1 7 7 4.44 3.05145 2 6 7 1 2 7 7 6 7 5.00 2.55146 1 7 7 1 2 7 1 6 7 4.33 2.96

153

147 2 7 7 1 1 7 1 7 7 4.44 3.05148 2 7 7 1 1 7 1 7 7 4.44 3.05149 2 7 3 1 2 7 1 2 7 3.56 2.65150 2 7 3 2 2 7 1 2 7 3.67 2.55151 3 5 3 2 3 6 2 3 6 3.67 1.58152 3 6 5 2 3 7 1 3 7 4.11 2.20153 3 6 5 2 1 6 2 2 7 3.78 2.22154 3 6 3 2 2 7 2 3 7 3.89 2.15155 3 7 5 2 1 7 1 6 7 4.33 2.60156 3 6 3 2 1 7 2 3 7 3.78 2.28157 3 6 3 2 1 2 1 1 7 2.89 2.20

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.158 3 6 4 2 1 7 3 3 7 4.00 2.18159 3 5 5 3 3 7 3 3 7 4.33 1.73160 5 5 4 3 3 6 3 3 7 4.33 1.50161 6 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 7 5.00 1.12162 6 4 5 4 6 5 2 2 5 4.33 1.50163 4 6 3 3 4 4 5 4 7 4.44 1.33164 6 4 4 4 6 5 6 3 6 4.89 1.17165 6 2 4 4 6 5 3 5 6 4.56 1.42166 6 2 2 4 6 6 3 6 6 4.56 1.81167 6 2 2 3 5 5 4 2 6 3.89 1.69168 5 5 5 7 5 7 4 4 7 5.44 1.24169 3 5 6 5 2 6 2 3 6 4.22 1.72170 4 6 5 3 3 7 5 3 6 4.67 1.50171 5 6 5 3 5 7 3 5 7 5.11 1.45172 5 5 3 3 5 6 3 3 6 4.33 1.32173 4 5 1 1 1 6 1 4 6 3.22 2.22174 2 7 7 2 2 7 1 7 7 4.67 2.78175 5 5 5 2 3 3 2 2 7 3.78 1.79176 3 1 5 2 2 6 1 4 7 3.44 2.19177 3 6 2 2 2 6 1 3 6 3.44 2.01178 7 6 7 3 3 6 1 4 6 4.78 2.11179 4 7 7 1 1 6 1 1 6 3.78 2.77180 4 7 7 1 2 7 1 1 7 4.11 2.89181 3 6 4 2 3 7 2 4 7 4.22 1.99182 5 6 3 3 5 7 3 5 7 4.89 1.62183 5 7 1 1 5 7 2 3 7 4.22 2.54184 5 7 3 2 3 7 1 4 7 4.33 2.29185 3 6 5 3 3 7 2 3 7 4.33 1.94186 4 6 3 3 2 7 1 4 7 4.11 2.15

154

187 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 7 7 3.67 3.16188 1 7 3 1 1 7 3 6 7 4.00 2.74189 1 7 7 1 1 7 1 7 7 4.33 3.16190 1 7 7 1 1 6 1 7 7 4.22 3.07191 3 6 6 2 2 7 1 7 7 4.56 2.51192 3 7 6 2 2 7 1 7 7 4.67 2.60193 2 6 6 2 3 7 1 7 7 4.56 2.51194 1 7 5 6 3 6 2 6 6 4.67 2.12195 2 7 4 2 3 7 3 6 7 4.56 2.19196 4 6 6 4 1 6 2 6 6 4.56 1.94

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.197 4 7 6 2 3 7 1 7 7 4.89 2.42198 5 7 5 3 3 6 2 6 6 4.78 1.72199 5 6 6 3 3 7 3 7 7 5.22 1.79200 4 6 5 5 5 7 3 3 6 4.89 1.36201 4 6 6 1 3 7 1 7 7 4.67 2.50202 6 6 6 2 2 6 3 6 6 4.78 1.86203 1 7 7 1 1 7 1 2 6 3.67 2.96204 1 7 6 2 2 7 1 5 5 4.00 2.50205 1 7 5 3 1 5 1 5 5 3.67 2.24206 1 6 4 3 1 6 3 5 7 4.00 2.18207 3 5 5 3 2 3 2 7 7 4.11 1.96208 3 6 6 2 2 6 3 5 6 4.33 1.80209 3 7 7 3 3 7 2 7 7 5.11 2.26210 5 6 6 2 2 3 2 5 7 4.22 1.99211 4 6 6 3 2 6 2 6 6 4.56 1.81212 2 6 6 2 2 7 3 7 7 4.67 2.35213 5 7 7 3 3 6 3 6 6 5.11 1.69214 3 6 4 2 2 6 4 6 6 4.33 1.73215 3 7 7 2 1 6 2 6 6 4.44 2.40216 1 7 5 3 2 7 4 7 7 4.78 2.39217 3 6 6 2 2 7 3 7 7 4.78 2.22218 4 5 5 2 3 6 1 4 6 4.00 1.73219 5 6 5 2 3 2 2 5 3 3.67 1.58220 4 5 4 3 1 5 2 3 5 3.56 1.42221 1 5 7 4 4 6 3 4 7 4.56 1.94222 4 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 5 4.22 0.97223 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 3 3.00 0.71224 5 5 6 3 3 6 5 4 5 4.67 1.12225 4 7 7 1 7 1 1 7 4 4.33 2.78226 1 6 5 1 2 7 2 4 7 3.89 2.47

155

227 1 6 5 3 1 2 3 5 7 3.67 2.18228 4 5 3 3 3 5 4 5 5 4.11 0.93229 3 7 3 3 3 7 3 6 6 4.56 1.88230 5 7 5 3 3 6 3 6 6 4.89 1.54231 5 5 1 3 1 7 1 4 7 3.78 2.44232 5 5 1 3 3 6 4 6 6 4.33 1.73233 4 3 2 4 4 6 3 4 5 3.89 1.17234 5 5 3 3 3 6 3 5 7 4.44 1.51235 3 6 3 3 2 5 3 4 7 4.00 1.66

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.236 5 7 5 3 3 6 4 6 6 5.00 1.41237 3 4 1 2 3 7 1 3 7 3.44 2.24238 3 6 1 2 3 7 1 5 7 3.89 2.42239 6 3 2 4 6 5 3 2 6 4.11 1.69240 6 3 5 3 5 5 3 3 5 4.22 1.20241 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 6 4.00 1.22242 5 5 2 4 5 5 3 3 6 4.22 1.30243 5 2 6 3 6 6 2 2 6 4.22 1.92244 4 2 4 4 5 5 3 2 7 4.00 1.58245 6 6 2 3 5 5 3 3 7 4.44 1.74246 4 4 3 4 5 5 3 3 6 4.11 1.05247 6 5 2 2 5 5 2 2 7 4.00 2.00248 5 5 1 2 5 5 3 2 6 3.78 1.79249 6 3 3 3 5 6 3 3 6 4.22 1.48250 5 2 2 6 5 5 3 3 6 4.11 1.62251 5 2 2 3 6 6 4 4 7 4.33 1.80252 5 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 6 4.22 1.09253 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 6 4.00 1.22254 5 2 2 3 5 5 3 3 6 3.78 1.48255 5 5 1 3 2 7 7 4 7 4.56 2.24256 5 5 1 2 3 7 1 4 7 3.89 2.32257 7 4 1 1 6 7 2 1 7 4.00 2.78258 5 4 1 1 7 7 3 1 7 4.00 2.65259 5 4 1 2 5 6 3 3 7 4.00 1.94260 5 3 1 3 5 4 3 3 7 3.78 1.72261 3 7 2 2 5 7 3 7 7 4.78 2.28262 3 5 3 3 3 6 3 3 7 4.00 1.58263 3 7 1 1 2 7 3 5 6 3.89 2.42264 5 5 1 2 4 6 3 6 6 4.22 1.86265 5 5 1 2 3 6 3 5 6 4.00 1.80266 3 5 2 2 3 5 3 3 7 3.67 1.66

156

267 3 7 1 3 2 6 3 5 6 4.00 2.06268 3 5 2 3 1 5 3 5 5 3.56 1.51269 4 5 2 3 3 6 3 4 6 4.00 1.41270 4 5 3 3 1 5 1 5 5 3.56 1.67271 4 5 3 1 2 7 3 5 6 4.00 1.94272 4 5 1 3 1 7 2 4 7 3.78 2.28273 4 5 1 1 3 7 3 5 6 3.89 2.09274 5 5 3 3 5 6 3 4 6 4.44 1.24

ID OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 Mean s.d.275 5 5 3 3 4 5 3 4 5 4.11 0.93276 3 4 4 3 1 3 3 4 5 3.33 1.12277 3 5 2 3 3 5 3 5 5 3.78 1.20278 3 7 1 2 2 6 1 4 6 3.56 2.30279 4 6 1 3 3 7 3 4 7 4.22 2.05280 3 7 1 2 2 7 1 3 7 3.67 2.60281 3 7 1 1 2 7 1 7 7 4.00 2.92282 2 7 1 2 2 7 1 7 7 4.00 2.87283 6 7 1 1 1 7 6 7 7 4.78 2.86284 3 7 1 1 2 6 1 7 7 3.89 2.80285 1 7 1 2 1 7 1 5 7 3.56 2.88286 2 6 2 2 2 6 1 4 6 3.44 2.07287 3 3 5 5 5 4 2 5 4 4.00 1.12288 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3.67 0.87289 3 6 1 2 2 3 2 5 7 3.44 2.07290 3 3 7 2 4 1 3 4 6 3.67 1.87291 4 6 1 1 2 6 2 6 6 3.78 2.28292 3 6 2 3 3 6 2 6 6 4.11 1.83293 2 2 1 1 1 5 2 7 7 3.11 2.52294 2 2 3 1 2 7 1 5 7 3.33 2.40295 3 7 1 1 1 3 1 7 7 3.44 2.79296 2 2 1 5 2 6 3 5 6 3.56 1.94297 3 3 1 1 2 5 1 5 5 2.89 1.76298 2 7 2 3 3 7 1 4 7 4.00 2.40299 4 7 1 3 2 7 2 2 7 3.89 2.47300 3 7 4 4 4 7 2 6 6 4.78 1.79Mean 4.03 4.96 3.22 2.71 3.44 5.96 2.76 4.24 6.26 4.17 1.31s.d. 1.65 1.90 2.05 1.56 1.79 1.30 1.65 1.83 1.03 1.64 0.31

Demographic Questionnaire

157

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL

158

1 2 1 7 2 12 4 2 7 3 33 2 2 7 4 34 4 2 7 3 35 4 2 6 4 26 4 2 6 4 27 2 2 6 2 18 3 2 6 3 29 3 2 6 3 211 3 2 7 3 212 3 2 7 3 213 3 2 7 3 214 1 2 6 2 215 2 2 6 2 216 2 2 6 2 217 2 2 6 1 218 2 2 6 1 219 2 2 6 1 120 4 2 6 4 221 4 2 6 4 222 4 2 6 4 223 4 1 7 3 224 4 2 7 4 225 3 2 7 3 226 1 2 4 1 127 2 2 6 2 128 3 2 6 3 229 4 2 6 4 230 4 2 6 4 231 3 1 7 2 232 3 2 6 3 233 1 2 1 2 234 4 2 5 2 335 2 2 4 2 136 2 2 4 1 137 5 2 4 1 238 1 2 7 1 139 2 2 7 1 140 2 2 7 2 1

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL41 2 2 5 2 1

159

42 2 1 2 1 143 1 2 4 1 144 1 2 4 1 145 2 1 4 1 146 4 2 7 2 347 1 2 5 1 148 3 1 4 2 249 3 2 3 1 350 1 2 3 1 151 3 1 3 3 352 4 2 5 2 253 5 1 5 3 254 3 2 4 1 255 1 2 3 1 156 1 2 4 1 157 1 2 4 2 158 5 2 6 2 259 3 2 4 2 160 3 2 6 3 261 3 2 6 3 262 3 2 6 3 363 2 2 6 2 264 3 2 6 4 265 3 2 6 4 266 4 2 6 4 267 4 2 6 4 268 4 2 6 4 269 3 1 4 3 270 3 2 3 3 371 4 2 4 3 272 2 2 3 2 173 2 2 6 2 174 1 1 6 1 175 2 2 6 2 176 1 2 6 2 177 2 2 6 2 278 2 1 6 1 179 3 2 6 3 2

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL80 2 2 6 2 281 1 1 5 2 1

160

82 2 1 3 3 283 5 1 4 4 284 1 2 2 2 285 2 1 3 4 286 3 1 4 4 187 1 1 4 1 188 5 1 3 2 389 3 1 3 2 190 2 2 4 2 191 2 1 7 3 192 2 1 3 4 293 1 1 5 1 194 5 2 4 2 195 2 2 4 2 196 3 1 5 2 397 4 2 5 2 298 2 1 3 1 199 2 2 5 4 2100 1 2 3 1 1101 2 2 5 2 1102 4 2 6 4 2103 2 2 6 1 2104 3 2 6 3 3105 4 1 3 1 2106 1 2 3 1 1107 5 2 4 4 2108 2 2 3 2 1109 3 2 5 2 1110 2 2 6 2 2111 1 2 3 1 1112 4 1 6 2 3113 3 2 3 2 2114 1 1 3 2 1115 5 2 6 3 2116 2 1 5 2 2117 3 2 4 2 2118 4 1 3 3 2

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL119 1 2 1 1 1120 4 1 3 2 1121 4 2 4 2 3

161

122 2 2 4 2 2123 3 2 4 1 2124 4 1 3 3 2125 3 2 5 3 3126 2 2 4 1 2127 2 2 4 2 1128 4 1 3 3 2129 3 2 6 4 2130 3 2 6 2 2131 4 2 6 2 2132 4 2 6 2 2133 4 2 6 2 2134 4 2 6 2 2135 3 2 7 2 2136 3 2 6 2 2137 1 1 3 1 1138 1 1 3 2 1139 2 1 4 1 2140 2 2 6 1 2141 5 2 1 2 3142 3 1 3 2 2143 2 1 4 2 1144 4 1 5 2 3145 2 1 2 1 1146 3 1 4 2 2147 1 1 3 1 1148 2 1 3 1 2149 3 1 4 2 2150 4 1 4 2 3151 5 1 5 2 2152 2 2 3 1 1153 5 1 5 2 3154 3 1 3 2 1155 4 1 3 1 3156 4 1 4 2 3157 3 2 3 1 1

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL158 1 2 3 1 1159 1 2 3 2 1160 3 1 5 2 2161 3 2 6 4 2

162

162 2 2 6 2 2163 3 2 6 4 2164 3 2 6 3 2165 3 2 6 3 2166167 2 2 6 3 2168 3 2 4 2 2169 5 1 6 3 3170 2 2 6 3 2171 4 2 6 3 2172 1 1 3 1 1173 1 1 1 1 1174 1 1 2 1 1175 2 1 5 3 2176 3 1 6 3 2177 4 1 7 3 2178 1 2 3 1 1179 3 2 5 2 2180 1 2 3 1 1181 2 2 4 2 1182 2 1 4 2 2183 3 2 5 3 2184 4 1 5 3 2185 1 1 4 1 2186 1 1 3 1 1187 3 2 5 3 2188 4 1 5 2 3189 1 2 3 1 1190 5 1 6 2 3191 2 2 6 3 3192 3 1 4 2 3193 3 1 3 3 2194 3 1 4 2 2195 4 1 5 2 3196 4 1 3 2 2

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL197 2 2 4 2 2198 1 1 3 1 1199 5 1 6 2 2200 5 1 4 3 3201 1 2 1 1 1

163

202 5 1 7 4 3203 1 2 3 1 2204 5 2 5 4 3205 1 1 3 2 2206 1 2 3 1 1207 2 2 5 2 2208 3 2 5 3 2209 1 2 3 1 1210 5 1 6 2 3211 3 2 3 2 1212 3 1 3 4 2213 5 1 5 2 2214 2 1 3 1 1215 3 1 5 3 2216 4 2 5 2 3217 3 1 4 2 2218 1 1 4 2 1219 3 2 3 3 1220 2 2 3 3 2221 2 1 2 1 1222 2 2 3 2 3223 1 2 4 2 2224 2 1 4 2 2225 4 2 5 3 2226 3 2 7 3 3227 1 2 1 2 1228 4 1 5 3 2229 2 2 3 3 3230 2 2 3 2 1231 3 1 5 3 2232 5 1 6 3 2233 1 1 3 3 1234 2 2 5 2 3235 3 2 4 2 1

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL236 2 1 4 1 2237 1 2 5 1 1238 3 1 3 2 2239 4 2 6 4 2240 3 2 6 4 2241 2 2 6 2 2

164

242 2 1 6 2 1243 3 2 5 2 2244 3 2 6 2 2245 3 2 6 1 2246 2 2 6 1 1247 3 2 6 2 1248 3 2 6 2 2249 3 2 6 2 1250 2 2 6 2 1251 2 2 6 2 1252 3 2 6 2 1253 2 2 6 1 1254 3 2 6 1 2255 2 1 3 3 1256 4 2 6 2 2257 1 2 4 2 1258 3 1 5 3 3259 1 2 4 2 2260 2 1 4 1 1261 5 1 6 1 3262 3 1 3 1 1263 1 1 3 1 1264 1 2 3 2 1265 5 1 6 3 3266 2 1 4 1 1267 4 2 4 2 2268 1 2 3 1 3269 3 1 4 3 3270 1 1 3 1 1271 2 1 5 2 3272 4 1 6 2 2273 1 1 3 1 1274 2 2 4 2 2

ID AGE GENDER EDUC WORKED MARITAL275 3 2 5 3 2276 2 2 3 2 3277 3 2 4 3 2278 2 1 4 2 1279 1 2 4 2 1280 2 1 3 2 2281 3 2 4 2 3

165

282 2 1 4 1 1283 1 2 2 1 1284 1 2 1 1 1285 1 1 1 1 1286 1 2 1 1 1287 1 1 5 1 1288 2 2 4 2 2289 3 1 5 1 2290 2 1 5 1 2291 2 1 6 2 1292 1 2 3 2 1293 2 1 4 2 2294 2 2 5 2 2295 2 1 3 2 3296 5 2 6 2 2297 3 2 5 1 3298 2 2 4 2 3299 3 2 4 2 3300 3 2 5 2 2Mean s.d.

Authentic Leadership Scale 1 – 299 Participants

Transparency Subscale

AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 Total Mean s.d.

4 4 4 3 3 18 3.60 0.55

3 2 0 2 0 7 1.40 1.34

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

0 1 2 3 4 10 2.00 1.58

2 0 2 3 1 8 1.60 1.14

166

3 3 3 3 1 13 2.60 0.89

4 3 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

2 2 2 2 1 9 1.80 0.45

3 4 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

3 2 1 2 3 11 2.20 0.84

3 3 2 2 3 13 2.60 0.55

2 4 2 1 2 11 2.20 1.10

4 4 3 4 1 16 3.20 1.30

2 2 3 3 2 12 2.40 0.55

1 1 0 1 0 3 0.60 0.55

4 3 3 4 2 16 3.20 0.84

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

1 1 0 0 0 2 0.40 0.55

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

2 3 3 2 3 13 2.60 0.55

4 3 4 4 3 18 3.60 0.55

167

2 2 2 2 1 9 1.80 0.45

3 3 2 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

2 1 3 2 2 10 2.00 0.71

2 1 1 3 3 10 2.00 1.00

4 2 2 4 3 15 3.00 1.00

3 3 3 3 4 16 3.20 0.45

4 3 2 2 3 14 2.80 0.84

3 2 3 4 3 15 3.00 0.71

2 0 1 4 0 7 1.40 1.67

2 0 0 2 1 5 1.00 1.00

4 4 4 3 3 18 3.60 0.55

2 1 1 3 2 9 1.80 0.84

3 3 3 3 4 16 3.20 0.45

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

4 4 4 4 3 19 3.80 0.45

4 4 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.55

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

168

2 2 2 2 1 9 1.80 0.45

3 0 1 2 2 8 1.60 1.14

2 1 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 Total Mean s.d.

1 0 2 2 2 7 1.40 0.89

1 1 2 2 3 9 1.80 0.84

2 3 3 2 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 3 2 3 2 13 2.60 0.55

2 1 2 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

4 2 2 3 2 13 2.60 0.89

3 1 1 2 1 8 1.60 0.89

3 2 0 2 1 8 1.60 1.14

1 0 0 3 2 6 1.20 1.30

1 1 3 3 8 2.00 1.15

4 4 4 4 4 20 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 4 20 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 4 20 4.00 0.00

169

4 4 4 4 4 20 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 4 20 4.00 0.00

4 3 4 3 3 17 3.40 0.55

1 2 0 2 1 6 1.20 0.84

2 2 3 2 1 10 2.00 0.71

4 0 0 2 2 8 1.60 1.67

2 1 1 3 1 8 1.60 0.89

3 1 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

4 2 2 3 4 15 3.00 1.00

1 0 0 2 2 5 1.00 1.00

1 0 0 1 1 3 0.60 0.55

2 2 1 3 3 11 2.20 0.84

4 4 4 4 4 20 4.00 0.00

4 0 1 4 0 9 1.80 2.05

4 0 1 4 0 9 1.80 2.05

4 1 0 4 0 9 1.80 2.05

1 1 1 4 1 8 1.60 1.34

170

2 0 0 4 1 7 1.40 1.67

2 0 1 3 2 8 1.60 1.14

3 1 0 2 1 7 1.40 1.14

2 3 0 2 1 8 1.60 1.14

1 1 0 2 2 6 1.20 0.84

3 1 1 3 1 9 1.80 1.10

3 1 3 2 1 10 2.00 1.00

3 2 2 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

3 2 4 4 3 16 3.20 0.84

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

4 4 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.55

4 3 3 3 2 15 3.00 0.71

3 3 2 3 4 15 3.00 0.71

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 1 2 4 4 14 2.80 1.30

AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 Total Mean s.d.

4 4 3 4 3 18 3.60 0.55

171

1 0 0 1 1 3 0.60 0.55

4 1 4 4 3 16 3.20 1.30

3 3 4 4 4 18 3.60 0.55

3 3 3 4 3 16 3.20 0.45

4 3 2 4 2 15 3.00 1.00

3 3 3 2 2 13 2.60 0.55

0 1 1 2 2 6 1.20 0.84

3 2 3 4 3 15 3.00 0.71

3 4 3 2 2 14 2.80 0.84

4 3 4 4 4 19 3.80 0.45

2 0 0 3 1 6 1.20 1.30

3 1 0 2 1 7 1.40 1.14

4 0 1 2 1 8 1.60 1.52

2 1 0 3 1 7 1.40 1.14

4 2 2 3 2 13 2.60 0.89

3 2 2 1 1 9 1.80 0.84

2 1 0 2 1 6 1.20 0.84

172

2 3 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 3 2 3 2 13 2.60 0.55

2 1 2 3 2 10 2.00 0.71

2 1 1 3 1 8 1.60 0.89

2 0 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.71

3 0 0 3 1 7 1.40 1.52

3 2 1 2 1 9 1.80 0.84

2 1 1 2 1 7 1.40 0.55

2 1 1 2 2 8 1.60 0.55

3 1 1 3 1 9 1.80 1.10

3 2 1 0 1 7 1.40 1.14

2 1 1 2 1 7 1.40 0.55

2 0 1 2 2 7 1.40 0.89

2 2 1 2 3 10 2.00 0.71

2 3 2 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

3 1 2 1 1 8 1.60 0.89

3 2 2 3 1 11 2.20 0.84

173

2 1 0 2 1 6 1.20 0.84

2 2 1 3 3 11 2.20 0.84

3 2 1 3 2 11 2.20 0.84

2 1 1 2 2 8 1.60 0.55

3 2 1 2 1 9 1.80 0.84

3 1 1 3 3 11 2.20 1.10

2 1 1 3 3 10 2.00 1.00

2 1 1 3 3 10 2.00 1.00

2 2 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.55

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 Total Mean s.d.

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

2 2 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.55

3 2 2 4 3 14 2.80 0.84

4 2 1 3 2 12 2.40 1.14

3 1 0 4 0 8 1.60 1.82

3 1 0 4 0 8 1.60 1.82

174

4 0 0 4 0 8 1.60 2.19

4 0 0 3 0 7 1.40 1.95

4 0 0 4 2 10 2.00 2.00

3 0 0 0 0 3 0.60 1.34

3 0 0 4 0 7 1.40 1.95

4 0 0 3 0 7 1.40 1.95

3 0 0 1 1 5 1.00 1.22

3 0 0 1 0 4 0.80 1.30

2 0 0 0 0 2 0.40 0.89

3 1 0 2 0 6 1.20 1.30

3 0 0 2 1 6 1.20 1.30

2 0 1 3 2 8 1.60 1.14

3 1 1 4 2 11 2.20 1.30

3 2 1 2 1 9 1.80 0.84

3 1 0 4 1 9 1.80 1.64

3 0 0 2 1 6 1.20 1.30

3 0 0 2 0 5 1.00 1.41

175

3 1 1 2 1 8 1.60 0.89

3 1 1 2 1 8 1.60 0.89

4 1 0 4 2 11 2.20 1.79

3 1 0 2 2 8 1.60 1.14

3 1 1 2 2 9 1.80 0.84

2 2 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.55

2 0 0 2 2 6 1.20 1.10

3 2 2 4 4 15 3.00 1.00

3 1 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

4 3 3 4 4 18 3.60 0.55

4 3 3 4 3 17 3.40 0.55

3 2 1 3 2 11 2.20 0.84

3 2 3 4 2 14 2.80 0.84

3 3 1 2 2 11 2.20 0.84

3 0 1 2 2 8 1.60 1.14

3 1 1 2 2 9 1.80 0.84

2 2 2 1 1 8 1.60 0.55

176

3 0 0 4 1 8 1.60 1.82

2 1 1 1 1 6 1.20 0.45

1 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 0.45

1 1 1 2 1 6 1.20 0.45

2 1 0 3 2 8 1.60 1.14

AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 Total Mean s.d.

3 1 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.89

2 2 0 2 0 6 1.20 1.10

2 0 0 1 1 4 0.80 0.84

3 0 1 2 2 8 1.60 1.14

2 0 1 3 3 9 1.80 1.30

4 1 0 4 1 10 2.00 1.87

4 1 1 4 1 11 2.20 1.64

2 0 0 3 2 7 1.40 1.34

3 1 0 4 2 10 2.00 1.58

2 1 0 2 1 6 1.20 0.84

3 0 0 4 3 10 2.00 1.87

177

2 0 0 0 1 3 0.60 0.89

3 0 0 2 2 7 1.40 1.34

3 0 2 2 2 9 1.80 1.10

2 0 1 3 2 8 1.60 1.14

3 1 1 2 2 9 1.80 0.84

2 0 1 1 2 6 1.20 0.84

2 0 0 3 1 6 1.20 1.30

4 1 1 1 2 9 1.80 1.30

4 1 0 1 1 7 1.40 1.52

2 1 1 4 2 10 2.00 1.22

3 1 1 4 2 11 2.20 1.30

2 2 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.00

3 0 0 4 2 9 1.80 1.79

0 0 0 0 1 1 0.20 0.45

1 1 0 1 0 3 0.60 0.55

1 0 2 2 3 8 1.60 1.14

4 0 2 2 1 9 1.80 1.48

178

1 0 0 3 3 7 1.40 1.52

2 1 2 2 1 8 1.60 0.55

3 1 1 1 2 8 1.60 0.89

3 1 0 2 1 7 1.40 1.14

3 1 0 3 3 10 2.00 1.41

4 2 0 3 1 10 2.00 1.58

2 2 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.00

1 1 1 3 2 8 1.60 0.89

3 1 1 4 3 12 2.40 1.34

2 0 0 4 3 9 1.80 1.79

1 0 1 3 2 7 1.40 1.14

3 2 2 4 2 13 2.60 0.89

0 0 0 1 2 3 0.60 0.89

3 0 1 2 3 9 1.80 1.30

0 1 2 0 2 5 1.00 1.00

1 2 3 1 1 8 1.60 0.89

4 2 2 2 1 11 2.20 1.10

179

AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 Total Mean s.d.

4 4 3 2 2 15 3.00 1.00

1 2 1 2 2 8 1.60 0.55

3 2 0 4 3 12 2.40 1.52

3 1 2 3 2 11 2.20 0.84

3 2 0 4 1 10 2.00 1.58

0 0 0 1 2 3 0.60 0.89

1 2 2 1 2 8 1.60 0.55

3 3 1 3 3 13 2.60 0.89

2 1 2 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

4 2 1 2 2 11 2.20 1.10

3 1 0 2 2 8 1.60 1.14

2 1 2 2 3 10 2.00 0.71

2 1 2 2 1 8 1.60 0.55

2 3 2 3 2 12 2.40 0.55

3 1 0 3 2 9 1.80 1.30

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

180

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 1 1 2 3 10 2.00 1.00

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 4 3 16 3.20 0.45

3 3 3 2 3 14 2.80 0.45

3 1 2 4 4 14 2.80 1.30

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 1 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 1 1 2 3 10 2.00 1.00

4 1 0 3 2 10 2.00 1.58

181

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 2 3 14 2.80 0.45

3 1 3 4 3 14 2.80 1.10

3 2 2 3 2 12 2.40 0.55

3 2 2 2 3 12 2.40 0.55

4 3 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

4 3 2 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

3 2 0 3 1 9 1.80 1.30

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

3 2 3 1 3 12 2.40 0.89

4 3 3 2 3 15 3.00 0.71

4 3 3 4 3 17 3.40 0.55

AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 Total Mean s.d.

1 2 3 2 3 11 2.20 0.84

4 2 2 3 4 15 3.00 1.00

3 1 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.89

2 3 3 3 2 13 2.60 0.55

182

4 2 2 3 2 13 2.60 0.89

2 1 3 1 3 10 2.00 1.00

4 4 4 3 3 18 3.60 0.55

3 3 3 2 2 13 2.60 0.55

2 2 1 3 2 10 2.00 0.71

3 2 0 2 1 8 1.60 1.14

3 2 2 3 2 12 2.40 0.55

3 2 0 2 1 8 1.60 1.14

2 1 0 2 1 6 1.20 0.84

4 1 1 2 2 10 2.00 1.22

1 1 2 0 1 5 1.00 0.71

2 0 0 0 0 2 0.40 0.89

2 1 0 1 1 5 1.00 0.71

1 0 0 1 2 4 0.80 0.84

3 3 2 1 1 10 2.00 1.00

3 3 3 4 4 17 3.40 0.55

2 2 2 2 1 9 1.80 0.45

183

3 2 1 2 1 9 1.80 0.84

4 1 0 2 1 8 1.60 1.52

3 2 2 1 1 9 1.80 0.84

3 1 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.89

1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

2 2 2 1 2 9 1.80 0.45

2 2 2 0 0 6 1.20 1.10

2 2 2 1 2 9 1.80 0.45

3 2 1 2 2 10 2.00 0.71

2 2 2 1 1 8 1.60 0.55

3 2 2 3 2 12 2.40 0.55

2.71 1.62 1.53 2.54 1.98 10.36 2.07 1.19

0.94 1.17 1.22 1.04 1.06 4.00

0.89 1.38 1.48 1.09 1.11 5.96

0.43

Transparency Subscale

Moral/Ethical Conduct Subscale

184

AL6 AL7 AL8 AL9 Total Mean s.d.

3 4 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

1 3 2 3 9 2.25 0.96

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

0 1 2 3 6 1.50 1.29

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

3 4 3 4 14 3.50 0.58

1 3 3 3 10 2.50 1.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 4 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

4 4 3 3 14 3.50 0.58

2 2 0 3 7 1.75 1.26

3 4 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

185

3 4 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

0 0 0 1 1 0.25 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 4 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

1 1 2 1 5 1.25 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

1 2 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

2 4 1 3 10 2.50 1.29

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

186

2 2 3 2 9 2.25 0.50

3 4 3 3 13 3.25 0.50

3 4 4 3 14 3.50 0.58

4 2 3 3 12 3.00 0.82

3 2 3 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

1 2 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

1 3 3 1 8 2.00 1.15

2 2 2 1 7 1.75 0.50

3 3 1 2 9 2.25 0.96

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

2 3 2 3 10 2.50 0.58

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 4 0 2 8 2.00 1.63

2 2 2 1 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 0 2 6 1.50 1.00

187

1 3 2 3 9 2.25 0.96

3 3 1 1 8 2.00 1.15

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 3 3 4 14 3.50 0.58

3 0 3 1 7 1.75 1.50

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 3 2 3 9 2.25 0.96

1 3 0 2 6 1.50 1.29

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

2 2 0 3 7 1.75 1.26

1 0 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

188

4 4 4 3 15 3.75 0.50

2 1 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 2 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

1 1 0 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 2 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 1 0 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 2 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 1 0 2 4 1.00 0.82

2 3 0 1 6 1.50 1.29

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

1 3 3 2 9 2.25 0.96

4 4 3 3 14 3.50 0.58

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

189

3 2 4 4 13 3.25 0.96

4 4 2 4 14 3.50 1.00

2 3 2 3 10 2.50 0.58

AL6 AL7 AL8 AL9 Total Mean s.d.

3 3 4 4 14 3.50 0.58

2 1 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

3 4 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 1 1 6 1.50 0.58

4 1 2 4 11 2.75 1.50

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

2 1 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

190

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

3 1 1 0 5 1.25 1.26

2 2 1 0 5 1.25 0.96

2 3 1 3 9 2.25 0.96

1 2 0 3 6 1.50 1.29

3 2 1 3 9 2.25 0.96

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

3 3 0 0 6 1.50 1.73

2 1 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

2 2 1 3 8 2.00 0.82

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 2 1 7 1.75 0.50

2 3 0 2 7 1.75 1.26

2 2 3 2 9 2.25 0.50

1 2 3 1 7 1.75 0.96

1 2 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

191

2 2 2 1 7 1.75 0.50

1 1 2 1 5 1.25 0.50

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

1 2 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

1 3 2 1 7 1.75 0.96

1 2 1 3 7 1.75 0.96

3 2 2 3 10 2.50 0.58

1 3 2 3 9 2.25 0.96

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

2 3 3 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 1 3 10 2.50 1.00

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

AL6 AL7 AL8 AL9 Total Mean s.d.

192

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

2 3 1 2 8 2.00 0.82

0 0 0 1 1 0.25 0.50

0 1 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

0 3 0 0 3 0.75 1.50

1 1 0 1 3 0.75 0.50

2 3 0 2 7 1.75 1.26

1 0 0 0 1 0.25 0.50

0 1 0 0 1 0.25 0.50

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 1 1 0.25 0.50

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

1 1 0 0 2 0.50 0.58

1 2 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

193

1 1 0 1 3 0.75 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 0 1 5 1.25 0.96

1 1 0 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 1 0 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

0 1 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

2 1 0 0 3 0.75 0.96

2 1 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

2 3 1 1 7 1.75 0.96

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

3 4 3 4 14 3.50 0.58

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

194

2 1 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

2 2 0 3 7 1.75 1.26

2 1 3 0 6 1.50 1.29

2 1 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

2 1 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 1 2 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 0 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

1 3 0 2 6 1.50 1.29

1 2 3 3 9 2.25 0.96

AL6 AL7 AL8 AL9 Total Mean s.d.

0 2 0 2 4 1.00 1.15

1 0 0 0 1 0.25 0.50

2 3 0 2 7 1.75 1.26

2 4 0 3 9 2.25 1.71

3 4 1 3 11 2.75 1.26

195

4 4 1 2 11 2.75 1.50

2 4 0 2 8 2.00 1.63

0 2 0 2 4 1.00 1.15

1 2 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

3 2 0 3 8 2.00 1.41

2 1 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

0 0 0 1 1 0.25 0.50

2 3 0 1 6 1.50 1.29

1 1 0 2 4 1.00 0.82

1 1 0 1 3 0.75 0.50

2 1 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 3 0 1 5 1.25 1.26

1 2 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

2 2 0 1 5 1.25 0.96

0 1 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

2 3 0 3 8 2.00 1.41

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

196

2 1 1 3 7 1.75 0.96

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

1 1 0 2 4 1.00 0.82

3 3 1 3 10 2.50 1.00

2 3 0 3 8 2.00 1.41

2 3 0 4 9 2.25 1.71

3 3 1 2 9 2.25 0.96

3 3 0 1 7 1.75 1.50

2 2 0 2 6 1.50 1.00

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 3 0 2 6 1.50 1.29

2 2 0 3 7 1.75 1.26

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

2 3 0 2 7 1.75 1.26

2 3 1 3 9 2.25 0.96

1 3 1 2 7 1.75 0.96

1 3 0 1 5 1.25 1.26

197

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

2 1 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 1 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

AL6 AL7 AL8 AL9 Total Mean s.d.

3 2 3 1 9 2.25 0.96

2 1 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

3 2 2 0 7 1.75 1.26

1 3 1 3 8 2.00 1.15

2 2 0 3 7 1.75 1.26

2 1 2 3 8 2.00 0.82

2 3 0 2 7 1.75 1.26

3 2 0 2 7 1.75 1.26

1 0 0 2 3 0.75 0.96

2 3 0 2 7 1.75 1.26

198

1 2 0 3 6 1.50 1.29

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 1 3 3 8 2.00 1.15

2 3 2 3 10 2.50 0.58

2 2 0 2 6 1.50 1.00

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

3 3 2 4 12 3.00 0.82

3 3 2 4 12 3.00 0.82

4 3 3 3 13 3.25 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

4 4 3 3 14 3.50 0.58

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

199

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 2 4 12 3.00 0.82

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

2 3 2 3 10 2.50 0.58

1 2 0 3 6 1.50 1.29

2 2 3 2 9 2.25 0.50

3 3 2 4 12 3.00 0.82

3 4 3 2 12 3.00 0.82

3 2 3 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

4 3 4 3 14 3.50 0.58

2 3 0 3 8 2.00 1.41

3 2 4 2 11 2.75 0.96

3 3 1 2 9 2.25 0.96

3 3 2 2 10 2.50 0.58

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

200

2 3 1 2 8 2.00 0.82

AL6 AL7 AL8 AL9 Total Mean s.d.

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

4 4 2 3 13 3.25 0.96

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

1 2 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

1 2 3 2 8 2.00 0.82

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 4 0 3 10 2.50 1.73

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

3 2 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

1 3 1 2 7 1.75 0.96

1 3 0 1 5 1.25 1.26

3 1 0 1 5 1.25 1.26

2 1 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 2 0 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 2 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

201

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

2 2 0 1 5 1.25 0.96

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

4 4 3 3 14 3.50 0.58

1 2 2 3 8 2.00 0.82

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

2 2 0 2 6 1.50 1.00

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 1 1 6 1.50 0.58

1 2 0 2 5 1.25 0.96

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

2 1 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

1 2 3 3 9 2.25 0.96

2 2 1 2 7 1.75 0.50

202

2.10 2.38 1.57 2.28 8.33 2.08 1.20

1.08 1.05 1.36 1.11 1.15 0.14

1.17 1.11 1.84 1.24 5.35 3.91

0.36

Moral/Ethical Conduct Subscale

Balanced Processing Subscale

AL10 AL11 AL12 Total Mean s.d.

3 4 3 10 3.33 1.39

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.63

3 3 3 9 3.00 1.34

4 0 1 5 1.67 1.48

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.63

1 3 2 6 2.00 0.96

3 4 3 10 3.33 1.32

1 4 1 6 2.00 1.34

3 3 3 9 3.00 1.52

4 4 2 10 3.33 1.50

203

3 3 2 8 2.67 1.30

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.27

2 3 3 8 2.67 1.25

3 3 2 8 2.67 1.16

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.10

3 4 4 11 3.67 1.48

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.54

0 2 2 4 1.33 0.97

2 3 3 8 2.67 1.30

2 3 3 8 2.67 1.30

2 3 3 8 2.67 1.30

2 4 3 9 3.00 1.43

1 4 3 8 2.67 1.64

3 4 3 10 3.33 1.64

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.55

3 3 1 7 2.33 1.41

4 4 2 10 3.33 1.79

204

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.34

3 4 2 9 3.00 1.52

4 3 1 8 2.67 1.46

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.55

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.65

3 4 4 11 3.67 1.64

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.74

3 4 4 11 3.67 1.44

3 4 4 11 3.67 1.42

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.98

2 2 4 8 2.67 1.27

2 3 3 8 2.67 1.30

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.14

1 4 1 6 2.00 1.41

4 2 2 8 2.67 1.05

AL10 AL11 AL12 Total Mean s.d.

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.84

205

4 2 2 8 2.67 1.10

4 3 3 10 3.33 1.39

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.90

1 3 1 5 1.67 1.14

3 3 2 8 2.67 0.63

1 2 2 5 1.67 0.67

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.24

0 1 2 3 1.00 0.90

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.87

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.79

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.79

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.79

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.79

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.79

3 4 4 11 3.67 1.42

3 2 1 6 2.00 0.74

0 4 2 6 2.00 1.50

206

1 4 2 7 2.33 1.24

0 4 2 6 2.00 1.45

3 1 1 5 1.67 1.14

2 2 1 5 1.67 1.48

1 3 0 4 1.33 1.10

3 0 0 3 1.00 1.25

1 3 0 4 1.33 1.35

1 4 1 6 2.00 1.68

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.65

0 4 1 5 1.67 1.55

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.68

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.65

1 0 0 1 0.33 0.45

2 3 1 6 2.00 0.94

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.11

2 3 0 5 1.67 1.16

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.83

207

0 2 2 4 1.33 1.00

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.71

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.61

3 2 3 8 2.67 1.16

3 2 3 8 2.67 1.06

3 2 2 7 2.33 1.22

3 4 4 11 3.67 1.44

4 3 3 10 3.33 1.13

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.30

4 2 4 10 3.33 1.45

AL10 AL11 AL12 Total Mean s.d.

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.49

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.08

4 4 4 12 4.00 1.79

4 4 3 11 3.67 1.73

3 2 2 7 2.33 1.22

3 3 4 10 3.33 1.32

208

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.67

1 1 2 4 1.33 0.55

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.67

4 3 1 8 2.67 1.52

4 3 4 11 3.67 1.73

1 4 1 6 2.00 1.32

0 3 2 5 1.67 1.18

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.14

0 1 1 2 0.67 0.48

1 4 2 7 2.33 1.24

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.64

0 1 1 2 0.67 0.80

4 2 3 9 3.00 1.67

3 2 1 6 2.00 0.74

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.78

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.16

0 2 2 4 1.33 1.02

209

0 4 2 6 2.00 1.56

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.61

0 3 2 5 1.67 1.10

0 3 2 5 1.67 1.25

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.88

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.87

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.45

1 2 2 5 1.67 0.65

2 2 3 7 2.33 0.89

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.61

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.63

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.50

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.34

1 2 2 5 1.67 0.80

2 2 3 7 2.33 0.73

3 1 1 5 1.67 1.04

4 3 2 9 3.00 1.30

210

2 4 1 7 2.33 1.58

3 4 1 8 2.67 1.30

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.27

3 3 2 8 2.67 1.30

3 3 2 8 2.67 1.30

AL10 AL11 AL12 Total Mean s.d.

3 3 2 8 2.67 1.30

3 4 2 9 3.00 1.35

3 4 3 10 3.33 1.52

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.93

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.84

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.25

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.67

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.68

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.27

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.72

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.84

211

1 2 0 3 1.00 0.89

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.84

0 0 1 1 0.33 0.45

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

1 2 0 3 1.00 0.75

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.83

0 1 0 1 0.33 0.45

2 3 1 6 2.00 1.14

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.72

1 3 1 5 1.67 1.00

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.24

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.89

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.30

1 2 0 3 1.00 0.72

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.23

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.66

2 2 3 7 2.33 0.97

212

2 4 1 7 2.33 1.58

3 3 0 6 2.00 1.41

2 3 2 7 2.33 1.12

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.48

3 4 4 11 3.67 1.73

4 4 3 11 3.67 1.48

3 4 1 8 2.67 1.38

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.63

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.42

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.94

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.88

2 3 3 8 2.67 0.95

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.94

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.82

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.89

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.91

3 1 2 6 2.00 0.87

213

AL10 AL11 AL12 Total Mean s.d.

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.85

1 1 0 2 0.67 0.45

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.64

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.35

0 4 1 5 1.67 1.57

1 4 3 8 2.67 1.20

1 4 0 5 1.67 1.48

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.09

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.65

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.66

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.86

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.27

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.64

0 2 2 4 1.33 0.85

0 4 1 5 1.67 1.58

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.23

214

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.88

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.78

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.61

1 0 0 1 0.33 0.42

1 4 2 7 2.33 1.15

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.30

1 4 0 5 1.67 1.51

1 4 2 7 2.33 1.35

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.26

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.97

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.66

1 4 0 5 1.67 1.49

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.90

0 2 2 4 1.33 0.84

0 3 2 5 1.67 1.12

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.23

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.25

215

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.10

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.52

1 4 1 6 2.00 1.27

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.56

0 1 1 2 0.67 0.62

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.41

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.94

1 4 1 6 2.00 1.32

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.78

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.33

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.17

0 1 1 2 0.67 0.56

AL10 AL11 AL12 Total Mean s.d.

3 1 1 5 1.67 0.94

3 2 2 7 2.33 0.88

2 0 2 4 1.33 0.84

0 4 0 4 1.33 1.67

216

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.78

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.47

1 2 0 3 1.00 0.78

1 4 2 7 2.33 1.18

0 2 1 3 1.00 0.72

1 2 0 3 1.00 0.78

0 3 0 3 1.00 1.25

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.12

0 1 1 2 0.67 0.71

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.90

1 2 0 3 1.00 0.74

3 2 2 7 2.33 1.22

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.97

3 3 2 8 2.67 1.25

3 3 2 8 2.67 1.06

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.97

3 4 1 8 2.67 1.52

217

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.20

1 4 2 7 2.33 1.35

1 3 2 6 2.00 1.20

2 3 2 7 2.33 1.22

2 3 2 7 2.33 1.12

4 2 2 8 2.67 1.48

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.97

3 4 2 9 3.00 1.52

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.20

2 4 2 8 2.67 1.27

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.90

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.42

3 3 4 10 3.33 1.30

3 2 1 6 2.00 1.05

4 4 3 11 3.67 1.30

2 3 3 8 2.67 1.06

2 4 3 9 3.00 1.52

218

4 3 2 9 3.00 1.36

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.84

2 3 0 5 1.67 1.26

0 3 1 4 1.33 1.18

0 2 0 2 0.67 1.16

2 3 3 8 2.67 1.06

0 2 3 5 1.67 1.17

AL10 AL11 AL12 Total Mean s.d.

1 1 2 4 1.33 0.61

2 4 4 10 3.33 1.33

3 1 2 6 2.00 0.96

1 1 1 3 1.00 0.27

3 1 1 5 1.67 0.93

3 2 2 7 2.33 1.22

3 3 1 7 2.33 0.87

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.65

2 3 1 6 2.00 1.00

219

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.50

2 1 2 5 1.67 0.47

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.47

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.47

1 1 0 2 0.67 0.43

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.87

0 1 0 1 0.33 0.55

0 4 1 5 1.67 1.51

0 2 0 2 0.67 0.86

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.61

3 4 3 10 3.33 1.32

2 2 3 7 2.33 0.77

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.88

1 4 1 6 2.00 1.30

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.67

1 2 2 5 1.67 0.89

1 1 2 4 1.33 0.55

220

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.44

1 2 2 5 1.67 0.71

1 3 1 5 1.67 0.96

2 2 1 5 1.67 0.76

1 3 2 6 2.00 0.87

1 2 2 5 1.67 0.67

1.54 2.65 1.50 5.68 1.89 1.31

1.31 1.12 1.16 1.31

1.71 1.25 1.35 4.31

0.24

Balanced Processing Subscale

Self-Awarness Subscale

AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 Total Mean s.d.

3 4 3 3 13 3.25 0.50

2 2 1 1 6 1.50 0.58

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

2 3 4 0 9 2.25 1.71

221

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

2 0 1 2 5 1.25 0.96

2 3 4 4 13 3.25 0.96

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 2 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

2 3 3 3 11 2.75 0.50

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

4 3 4 3 14 3.50 0.58

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

0 0 0 2 2 0.50 1.00

4 3 3 3 13 3.25 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

2 0 0 2 4 1.00 1.15

3 2 2 3 10 2.50 0.58

3 2 2 3 10 2.50 0.58

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

222

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

1 1 2 2 6 1.50 0.58

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

3 2 2 4 11 2.75 0.96

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 2 1 7 1.75 0.50

2 3 1 4 10 2.50 1.29

0 2 3 3 8 2.00 1.41

4 3 3 3 13 3.25 0.50

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

4 3 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

4 4 3 3 14 3.50 0.58

4 3 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

223

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

0 2 2 2 6 1.50 1.00

1 2 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 Total Mean s.d.

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

2 1 3 4 10 2.50 1.29

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

0 3 3 3 9 2.25 1.50

2 1 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

3 2 3 1 9 2.25 0.96

1 2 3 4 10 2.50 1.29

1 3 2 4 10 2.50 1.29

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

224

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

3 2 3 3 11 2.75 0.50

2 3 3 4 12 3.00 0.82

1 3 1 3 8 2.00 1.15

1 2 2 4 9 2.25 1.26

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 1 0 0 2 0.50 0.58

0 2 1 1 4 1.00 0.82

0 1 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

1 1 1 2 5 1.25 0.50

0 1 0 0 1 0.25 0.50

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

225

0 0 1 0 1 0.25 0.50

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

1 2 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 1 2 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 1 1 2 5 1.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

2 2 3 3 10 2.50 0.58

2 2 3 3 10 2.50 0.58

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

2 4 3 3 12 3.00 0.82

1 3 3 1 8 2.00 1.15

AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 Total Mean s.d.

226

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

1 1 2 2 6 1.50 0.58

4 4 4 4 16 4.00 0.00

3 4 3 3 13 3.25 0.50

4 3 3 3 13 3.25 0.50

4 4 3 3 14 3.50 0.58

2 1 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

1 3 1 4 9 2.25 1.50

1 2 3 4 10 2.50 1.29

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

1 3 3 4 11 2.75 1.26

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

3 1 4 4 12 3.00 1.41

1 0 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 3 4 4 12 3.00 1.41

2 2 4 4 12 3.00 1.15

227

1 2 3 4 10 2.50 1.29

3 3 3 2 11 2.75 0.50

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

1 1 4 4 10 2.50 1.73

0 1 1 4 6 1.50 1.73

1 4 4 4 13 3.25 1.50

0 2 4 4 10 2.50 1.91

2 0 3 4 9 2.25 1.71

2 3 4 3 12 3.00 0.82

2 2 3 3 10 2.50 0.58

1 1 4 4 10 2.50 1.73

3 3 1 4 11 2.75 1.26

2 2 1 4 9 2.25 1.26

2 2 2 4 10 2.50 1.00

1 1 2 4 8 2.00 1.41

2 3 4 4 13 3.25 0.96

228

2 3 4 4 13 3.25 0.96

2 3 4 4 13 3.25 0.96

2 2 4 4 12 3.00 1.15

2 3 3 4 12 3.00 0.82

1 3 3 3 10 2.50 1.00

3 2 2 4 11 2.75 0.96

1 1 1 2 5 1.25 0.50

1 1 1 2 5 1.25 0.50

1 1 1 4 7 1.75 1.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 Total Mean s.d.

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

2 3 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

0 1 2 1 4 1.00 0.82

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

229

1 0 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

0 1 0 1 2 0.50 0.58

0 0 1 0 1 0.25 0.50

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 1 1 0.25 0.50

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 1 1 2 0.50 0.58

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 0 1 1 2 0.50 0.58

0 0 1 0 1 0.25 0.50

2 2 2 1 7 1.75 0.50

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

0 1 0 0 1 0.25 0.50

0 0 2 0 2 0.50 1.00

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

230

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

1 1 1 2 5 1.25 0.50

0 2 2 2 6 1.50 1.00

2 3 3 2 10 2.50 0.58

1 2 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 2 3 3 11 2.75 0.50

0 1 2 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 1 3 2 7 1.75 0.96

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

2 0 2 3 7 1.75 1.26

2 2 3 3 10 2.50 0.58

231

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

1 2 3 2 8 2.00 0.82

0 1 0 2 3 0.75 0.96

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

1 1 0 2 4 1.00 0.82

0 0 1 0 1 0.25 0.50

AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 Total Mean s.d.

0 2 2 2 6 1.50 1.00

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

0 0 2 2 4 1.00 1.15

4 1 1 0 6 1.50 1.73

0 2 3 1 6 1.50 1.29

0 0 2 2 4 1.00 1.15

2 2 3 0 7 1.75 1.26

0 1 2 1 4 1.00 0.82

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

0 0 2 0 2 0.50 1.00

232

1 0 3 2 6 1.50 1.29

0 0 1 1 2 0.50 0.58

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

0 0 3 1 4 1.00 1.41

0 1 2 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 1 2 0 4 1.00 0.82

1 1 2 0 4 1.00 0.82

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

1 1 2 1 5 1.25 0.50

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 2 1 7 1.75 0.50

0 2 2 3 7 1.75 1.26

0 2 3 4 9 2.25 1.71

0 2 2 2 6 1.50 1.00

0 2 0 2 4 1.00 1.15

2 0 3 0 5 1.25 1.50

0 2 2 2 6 1.50 1.00

233

0 0 3 2 5 1.25 1.50

0 2 0 2 4 1.00 1.15

0 2 2 2 6 1.50 1.00

1 3 3 3 10 2.50 1.00

1 0 2 1 4 1.00 0.82

2 1 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

0 3 3 3 9 2.25 1.50

2 2 3 3 10 2.50 0.58

0 3 2 2 7 1.75 1.26

2 1 2 1 6 1.50 0.58

1 0 0 3 4 1.00 1.41

0 1 1 2 4 1.00 0.82

0 1 2 2 5 1.25 0.96

2 0 1 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

234

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 Total Mean s.d.

2 2 1 3 8 2.00 0.82

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

1 1 2 4 8 2.00 1.41

2 0 3 4 9 2.25 1.71

0 2 1 3 6 1.50 1.29

2 1 2 3 8 2.00 0.82

1 2 3 4 10 2.50 1.29

2 3 3 4 12 3.00 0.82

0 0 2 3 5 1.25 1.50

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

0 2 2 3 7 1.75 1.26

0 1 3 3 7 1.75 1.50

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

3 2 1 3 9 2.25 0.96

235

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 1 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 0 0 0 2 0.50 1.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 2 3 9 2.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

236

3 0 3 2 8 2.00 1.41

4 4 3 4 15 3.75 0.50

3 3 2 3 11 2.75 0.50

3 4 4 4 15 3.75 0.50

3 3 4 4 14 3.50 0.58

3 2 2 2 9 2.25 0.50

3 3 4 2 12 3.00 0.82

1 0 4 4 9 2.25 2.06

0 3 3 3 9 2.25 1.50

1 1 3 3 8 2.00 1.15

0 1 2 3 6 1.50 1.29

3 3 3 4 13 3.25 0.50

1 1 1 2 5 1.25 0.50

AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 Total Mean s.d.

1 0 0 0 1 0.25 0.50

0 2 2 2 6 1.50 1.00

1 1 2 1 5 1.25 0.50

237

1 2 2 4 9 2.25 1.26

1 1 3 3 8 2.00 1.15

2 1 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

1 0 2 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 1 1 1 4 1.00 0.00

1 2 0 0 3 0.75 0.96

1 2 2 3 8 2.00 0.82

1 0 2 1 4 1.00 0.82

2 0 1 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 2 1 0 4 1.00 0.82

0 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.50

1 0 0 0 1 0.25 0.50

0 1 2 0 3 0.75 0.96

0 1 2 2 5 1.25 0.96

1 0 2 0 3 0.75 0.96

1 1 2 2 6 1.50 0.58

3 3 3 3 12 3.00 0.00

238

3 2 1 2 8 2.00 0.82

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

0 1 2 1 4 1.00 0.82

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

2 2 3 3 10 2.50 0.58

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

1 2 2 2 7 1.75 0.50

2 2 1 1 6 1.50 0.58

1 2 1 1 5 1.25 0.50

1 1 2 1 5 1.25 0.50

2 2 2 2 8 2.00 0.00

1 2 1 2 6 1.50 0.58

1.50 1.77 2.04 2.22 7.53 1.88 1.20

1.20 1.12 1.10 1.26 1.17 0.07

1.43 1.27 1.20 1.58 5.48

0.27

Self-Awareness Subscale

239

Supervisory Communication Subscale

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 Total Mean s.d.

1 6 5 6 5 6 28 5.60 0.55

2 2 1 4 4 4 15 3.00 1.41

3 6 7 7 7 27 6.75 0.50

4 2 3 4 5 6 20 4.00 1.58

5 2 2 5 4 13 3.25 1.50

6 5 4 4 3 4 20 4.00 0.71

7 6 6 6 5 6 29 5.80 0.45

8 4 4 4 5 6 23 4.60 0.89

9 1 6 6 7 7 27 5.40 2.51

11 5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

12 5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

13 3 3 4 3 5 18 3.60 0.89

14 6 6 6 5 6 29 5.80 0.45

15 5 4 5 4 6 24 4.80 0.84

16 1 1 1 1 2 6 1.20 0.45

240

17 7 7 7 6 7 34 6.80 0.45

18 6 6 6 6 7 31 6.20 0.45

19 3 4 5 5 4 21 4.20 0.84

20 6 6 6 5 5 28 5.60 0.55

21 6 6 6 5 6 29 5.80 0.45

22 5 6 6 5 6 28 5.60 0.55

23 7 6 7 7 7 34 6.80 0.45

24 5 5 5 5 6 26 5.20 0.45

25 6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

26 3 1 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.71

27 4 3 3 3 7 20 4.00 1.73

28 5 5 5 4 6 25 5.00 0.71

29 4 5 4 3 6 22 4.40 1.14

30 4 4 4 3 5 20 4.00 0.71

31 5 3 3 3 2 16 3.20 1.10

32 1 1 1 2 1 6 1.20 0.45

33 2 2 1 1 2 8 1.60 0.55

241

34 6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

35 3 3 1 1 2 10 2.00 1.00

36 7 7 6 7 5 32 6.40 0.89

37 7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

38 7 7 7 7 6 34 6.80 0.45

39 7 6 7 6 6 32 6.40 0.55

40 6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

41 3 3 3 2 3 14 2.80 0.45

42 4 4 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.55

43 4 4 3 3 2 16 3.20 0.84

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 Total Mean s.d.

44 3 3 3 2 2 13 2.60 0.55

45 4 3 3 2 4 16 3.20 0.84

46 6 5 7 6 6 30 6.00 0.71

47 4 4 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.55

48 3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

49 4 5 3 2 3 17 3.40 1.14

242

50 3 4 4 4 5 20 4.00 0.71

51 1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

52 5 2 1 2 1 11 2.20 1.64

53 4 4 2 1 1 12 2.40 1.52

54 7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

55 7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

56 7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

57 7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

58 6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

59 7 7 6 7 7 34 6.80 0.45

60 4 6 1 1 1 13 2.60 2.30

61 4 3 1 1 1 10 2.00 1.41

62 3 4 1 3 3 14 2.80 1.10

63 4 1 2 3 3 13 2.60 1.14

64 4 4 5 2 4 19 3.80 1.10

65 6 6 6 4 6 28 5.60 0.89

66 3 3 5 2 6 19 3.80 1.64

243

67 2 3 5 1 6 17 3.40 2.07

68 2 5 5 2 6 20 4.00 1.87

69 3 5 3 5 5 21 4.20 1.10

70 1 2 1 1 3 8 1.60 0.89

71 1 2 2 1 5 11 2.20 1.64

72 1 2 2 1 3 9 1.80 0.84

73 2 2 2 1 2 9 1.80 0.45

74 1 2 2 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

75 3 3 1 2 3 12 2.40 0.89

76 2 2 2 1 3 10 2.00 0.71

77 3 3 3 2 4 15 3.00 0.71

78 3 3 3 1 3 13 2.60 0.89

79 3 3 3 1 3 13 2.60 0.89

80 3 4 5 2 5 19 3.80 1.30

81 5 5 3 5 5 23 4.60 0.89

82 5 5 4 6 3 23 4.60 1.14

83 4 4 4 4 4 20 4.00 0.00

244

84 6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

85 4 4 5 5 5 23 4.60 0.55

86 5 4 6 6 6 27 5.40 0.89

87 7 5 5 5 5 27 5.40 0.89

88 5 7 5 5 4 26 5.20 1.10

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 Total Mean s.d.

89 7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

90 3 3 1 1 3 11 2.20 1.10

91 4 5 4 6 6 25 5.00 1.00

92 6 6 5 5 3 25 5.00 1.22

93 6 7 5 6 7 31 6.20 0.84

94 6 7 7 7 6 33 6.60 0.55

95 4 3 2 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

96 3 2 2 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

97 2 5 4 6 4 21 4.20 1.48

98 5 5 6 6 5 27 5.40 0.55

99 7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

245

100 3 3 1 1 1 9 1.80 1.10

101 3 2 2 3 4 14 2.80 0.84

102 2 2 1 1 2 8 1.60 0.55

103 3 3 1 2 2 11 2.20 0.84

104 5 4 2 4 4 19 3.80 1.10

105 1 1 1 3 3 9 1.80 1.10

106 3 3 2 2 1 11 2.20 0.84

107 5 5 4 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

108 4 4 1 2 3 14 2.80 1.30

109 2 2 2 2 1 9 1.80 0.45

110 4 3 3 2 3 15 3.00 0.71

111 4 4 1 2 2 13 2.60 1.34

112 2 4 2 3 1 12 2.40 1.14

113 4 3 2 2 3 14 2.80 0.84

114 3 2 1 1 1 8 1.60 0.89

115 4 4 2 5 3 18 3.60 1.14

116 3 3 2 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

246

117 4 5 3 2 3 17 3.40 1.14

118 3 4 4 3 4 18 3.60 0.55

119 6 4 2 2 3 17 3.40 1.67

120 3 4 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

121 3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

122 4 5 3 2 4 18 3.60 1.14

123 3 4 3 3 4 17 3.40 0.55

124 3 3 2 2 3 13 2.60 0.55

125 4 5 5 4 3 21 4.20 0.84

126 4 3 2 4 3 16 3.20 0.84

127 5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

128 6 5 4 3 5 23 4.60 1.14

129 3 4 5 3 5 20 4.00 1.00

130 4 5 6 2 5 22 4.40 1.52

131 4 5 6 3 3 21 4.20 1.30

132 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

133 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

247

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 Total Mean s.d.

134 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

135 6 6 6 3 6 27 5.40 1.34

136 5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

137 3 3 5 1 4 16 3.20 1.48

138 2 2 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.55

139 2 2 1 1 3 9 1.80 0.84

140 2 1 2 2 1 8 1.60 0.55

141 1 2 1 1 1 6 1.20 0.45

142 1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

143 2 2 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.55

144 1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

145 2 2 2 1 1 8 1.60 0.55

146 2 2 2 1 1 8 1.60 0.55

147 1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

148 2 2 2 2 1 9 1.80 0.45

149 2 2 2 1 1 8 1.60 0.55

248

150 1 1 2 1 2 7 1.40 0.55

151 2 2 3 2 3 12 2.40 0.55

152 2 3 3 3 4 15 3.00 0.71

153 3 3 2 2 1 11 2.20 0.84

154 2 3 3 1 3 12 2.40 0.89

155 2 2 2 1 2 9 1.80 0.45

156 3 3 2 1 1 10 2.00 1.00

157 2 2 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.55

158 2 2 2 1 2 9 1.80 0.45

159 3 5 5 2 3 18 3.60 1.34

160 5 3 5 2 4 19 3.80 1.30

161 6 6 6 2 6 26 5.20 1.79

162 5 5 5 2 6 23 4.60 1.52

163 5 3 6 2 5 21 4.20 1.64

164 6 6 6 4 6 28 5.60 0.89

165 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

166 3 6 6 6 5 26 5.20 1.30

249

167 5 6 6 5 6 28 5.60 0.55

168 5 3 3 2 5 18 3.60 1.34

169 3 6 3 2 4 18 3.60 1.52

170 4 3 6 5 3 21 4.20 1.30

171 5 5 5 3 1 19 3.80 1.79

172 5 5 6 5 5 26 5.20 0.45

173 4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

174 3 2 1 1 1 8 1.60 0.89

175 4 3 3 1 1 12 2.40 1.34

176 4 4 4 1 1 14 2.80 1.64

177 3 2 2 1 3 11 2.20 0.84

178 4 5 4 3 3 19 3.80 0.84

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 Total Mean s.d.

179 1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

180 4 4 4 1 3 16 3.20 1.30

181 3 3 5 2 4 17 3.40 1.14

182 3 2 5 3 5 18 3.60 1.34

250

183 2 5 7 2 7 23 4.60 2.51

184 5 5 3 2 4 19 3.80 1.30

185 2 3 1 1 3 10 2.00 1.00

186 3 2 4 1 3 13 2.60 1.14

187 3 2 4 1 3 13 2.60 1.14

188 2 5 3 1 1 12 2.40 1.67

189 1 2 1 1 1 6 1.20 0.45

190 3 3 3 2 3 14 2.80 0.45

191 1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

192 2 5 1 1 1 10 2.00 1.73

193 1 2 2 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

194 3 3 3 1 3 13 2.60 0.89

195 2 2 3 1 3 11 2.20 0.84

196 3 3 3 1 1 11 2.20 1.10

197 2 2 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.00

198 5 4 1 2 5 17 3.40 1.82

199 3 6 5 3 3 20 4.00 1.41

251

200 2 2 2 2 1 9 1.80 0.45

201 5 5 5 3 7 25 5.00 1.41

202 3 3 2 2 2 12 2.40 0.55

203 5 5 7 3 1 21 4.20 2.28

204 1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

205 2 4 7 1 5 19 3.80 2.39

206 3 5 5 1 5 19 3.80 1.79

207 3 3 1 1 2 10 2.00 1.00

208 3 3 6 2 3 17 3.40 1.52

209 1 2 2 1 1 7 1.40 0.55

210 4 3 1 1 1 10 2.00 1.41

211 3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

212 5 5 1 1 1 13 2.60 2.19

213 5 5 2 1 4 17 3.40 1.82

214 2 3 2 1 3 11 2.20 0.84

215 3 3 5 5 4 20 4.00 1.00

216 4 3 1 1 2 11 2.20 1.30

252

217 4 3 2 2 4 15 3.00 1.00

218 3 3 3 1 4 14 2.80 1.10

219 2 3 3 2 2 12 2.40 0.55

220 3 5 3 2 4 17 3.40 1.14

221 3 4 4 4 5 20 4.00 0.71

222 5 5 2 1 1 14 2.80 2.05

223 6 6 6 5 4 27 5.40 0.89

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 Total Mean s.d.

224 5 5 5 2 4 21 4.20 1.30

225 4 5 1 1 5 16 3.20 2.05

226 3 3 1 1 3 11 2.20 1.10

227 4 4 3 3 5 19 3.80 0.84

228 2 3 3 1 3 12 2.40 0.89

229 3 2 3 2 5 15 3.00 1.22

230 1 1 1 1 2 6 1.20 0.45

231 4 3 3 2 1 13 2.60 1.14

232 3 4 1 3 3 14 2.80 1.10

253

233 3 3 1 3 3 13 2.60 0.89

234 5 6 3 3 3 20 4.00 1.41

235 3 3 3 2 4 15 3.00 0.71

236 4 5 5 3 5 22 4.40 0.89

237 4 4 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.55

238 3 3 5 3 5 19 3.80 1.10

239 6 5 6 4 6 27 5.40 0.89

240 5 5 4 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

241 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

242 6 5 6 4 6 27 5.40 0.89

243 6 6 6 4 6 28 5.60 0.89

244 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

245 5 5 5 2 5 22 4.40 1.34

246 6 6 6 3 6 27 5.40 1.34

247 5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

248 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

249 5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

254

250 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.60 0.89

251 4 5 5 4 5 23 4.60 0.55

252 5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

253 5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

254 4 5 4 4 5 22 4.40 0.55

255 3 4 4 3 5 19 3.80 0.84

256 3 5 5 2 3 18 3.60 1.34

257 5 5 5 5 7 27 5.40 0.89

258 6 6 7 6 5 30 6.00 0.71

259 7 7 5 6 6 31 6.20 0.84

260 5 6 5 5 6 27 5.40 0.55

261 6 7 5 5 5 28 5.60 0.89

262 3 3 1 1 3 11 2.20 1.10

263 3 3 1 1 1 9 1.80 1.10

264 3 3 3 1 3 13 2.60 0.89

265 3 3 3 1 3 13 2.60 0.89

266 7 6 4 1 2 20 4.00 2.55

255

267 3 3 1 1 3 11 2.20 1.10

268 4 4 1 3 1 13 2.60 1.52

ID CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 Total Mean s.d.

269 4 4 3 3 1 15 3.00 1.22

270 3 1 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.89

271 5 5 3 1 3 17 3.40 1.67

272 5 3 3 4 4 19 3.80 0.84

273 3 5 4 3 5 20 4.00 1.00

274 5 5 3 1 4 18 3.60 1.67

275 3 3 4 3 4 17 3.40 0.55

276 4 5 5 3 3 20 4.00 1.00

277 5 5 3 3 5 21 4.20 1.10

278 3 3 2 2 1 11 2.20 0.84

279 4 4 2 2 3 15 3.00 1.00

280 3 3 2 1 1 10 2.00 1.00

281 2 3 1 1 1 8 1.60 0.89

282 3 3 2 1 1 10 2.00 1.00

256

283 2 2 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.55

284 2 3 1 1 1 8 1.60 0.89

285 1 1 1 2 1 6 1.20 0.45

286 2 2 2 1 3 10 2.00 0.71

287 5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

288 5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

289 5 3 4 5 5 22 4.40 0.89

290 4 5 2 2 4 17 3.40 1.34

291 3 3 2 1 1 10 2.00 1.00

292 2 2 3 2 3 12 2.40 0.55

293 1 2 2 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

294 2 2 2 1 2 9 1.80 0.45

295 3 3 3 2 3 14 2.80 0.45

296 3 2 2 1 3 11 2.20 0.84

297 3 3 1 1 1 9 1.80 1.10

298 4 3 1 1 2 11 2.20 1.30

299 2 3 1 1 3 10 2.00 1.00

257

300 2 2 1 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

Mean 3.75 3.87 3.51 2.86 3.64 17.61 5.88 5.76

s.d. 1.60 1.59 1.88 1.79 1.85 7.64 1.78 0.14

Variance 2.56 2.54 3.54 3.22 3.44 15.30

alpha 0.13

Supervisory Communication Subscale

Horizontal and Informal Communication Subscale

CS11 CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 Total Mean s.d.

5 6 6 7 6 30 6.00 0.71

3 4 6 7 6 26 5.20 1.64

6 6 7 7 7 33 6.60 0.55

5 6 7 1 2 21 4.20 2.59

4 2 3 6 4 19 3.80 1.48

4 4 5 5 3 21 4.20 0.84

6 5 6 6 6 29 5.80 0.45

3 4 6 7 5 25 5.00 1.58

5 5 6 7 6 29 5.80 0.84

258

6 3 5 6 5 25 5.00 1.22

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

2 2 5 2 4 15 3.00 1.41

2 3 5 2 4 16 3.20 1.30

1 1 3 2 1 8 1.60 0.89

4 6 7 6 6 29 5.80 1.10

4 6 7 6 6 29 5.80 1.10

4 5 6 3 2 20 4.00 1.58

5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

5 5 6 7 6 29 5.80 0.84

6 5 5 7 6 29 5.80 0.84

6 5 6 5 5 27 5.40 0.55

3 7 7 7 6 30 6.00 1.73

6 6 4 5 5 26 5.20 0.84

259

6 5 6 7 6 30 6.00 0.71

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

7 5 7 7 7 33 6.60 0.89

4 5 7 7 6 29 5.80 1.30

5 5 5 6 6 27 5.40 0.55

2 3 5 5 5 20 4.00 1.41

4 6 7 6 6 29 5.80 1.10

4 7 7 4 7 29 5.80 1.64

6 6 7 7 7 33 6.60 0.55

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

3 5 6 6 5 25 5.00 1.22

3 5 7 5 5 25 5.00 1.41

CS11 CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 Total Mean s.d.

260

3 5 7 5 5 25 5.00 1.41

3 5 7 6 7 28 5.60 1.67

6 6 6 7 6 31 6.20 0.45

4 6 7 7 5 29 5.80 1.30

3 5 7 4 4 23 4.60 1.52

2 5 7 4 5 23 4.60 1.82

3 5 5 5 5 23 4.60 0.89

3 2 7 6 6 24 4.80 2.17

5 4 7 6 6 28 5.60 1.14

1 6 7 5 6 25 5.00 2.35

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

4 7 7 7 7 32 6.40 1.34

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

4 7 7 7 7 32 6.40 1.34

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

6 5 6 7 7 31 6.20 0.84

4 6 7 5 4 26 5.20 1.30

261

1 5 7 5 4 22 4.40 2.19

4 4 6 5 4 23 4.60 0.89

4 6 5 5 2 22 4.40 1.52

5 5 5 6 6 27 5.40 0.55

6 6 6 6 5 29 5.80 0.45

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

4 4 4 4 5 21 4.20 0.45

5 5 4 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

6 2 7 5 5 25 5.00 1.87

7 5 7 6 6 31 6.20 0.84

7 4 6 5 5 27 5.40 1.14

6 4 6 3 3 22 4.40 1.52

6 5 6 5 5 27 5.40 0.55

5 5 7 6 6 29 5.80 0.84

5 5 7 7 6 30 6.00 1.00

3 3 7 5 3 21 4.20 1.79

262

5 5 5 5 3 23 4.60 0.89

3 5 5 5 5 23 4.60 0.89

3 6 7 7 5 28 5.60 1.67

6 4 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.84

5 6 7 7 6 31 6.20 0.84

4 4 4 5 5 22 4.40 0.55

2 5 5 7 6 25 5.00 1.87

4 5 5 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

5 5 5 6 6 27 5.40 0.55

5 7 7 7 4 30 6.00 1.41

7 5 6 4 7 29 5.80 1.30

CS11 CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 Total Mean s.d.

5 6 6 6 5 28 5.60 0.55

2 2 7 6 6 23 4.60 2.41

6 4 6 5 6 27 5.40 0.89

7 7 6 7 7 34 6.80 0.45

5 6 7 4 5 27 5.40 1.14

263

6 7 7 6 6 32 6.40 0.55

1 4 6 5 5 21 4.20 1.92

5 5 4 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

4 3 6 4 5 22 4.40 1.14

6 7 7 5 5 30 6.00 1.00

5 6 6 7 7 31 6.20 0.84

4 5 7 5 5 26 5.20 1.10

4 3 2 2 2 13 2.60 0.89

3 4 6 5 5 23 4.60 1.14

2 5 7 5 6 25 5.00 1.87

2 4 6 4 3 19 3.80 1.48

3 6 4 4 3 20 4.00 1.22

3 4 5 4 4 20 4.00 0.71

4 4 4 4 5 21 4.20 0.45

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

2 4 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

3 5 5 5 5 23 4.60 0.89

264

3 4 4 4 4 19 3.80 0.45

3 2 5 3 3 16 3.20 1.10

2 5 5 5 4 21 4.20 1.30

5 4 6 4 4 23 4.60 0.89

6 5 6 4 1 22 4.40 2.07

7 5 5 5 5 27 5.40 0.89

2 3 4 3 4 16 3.20 0.84

3 3 4 3 4 17 3.40 0.55

4 5 7 7 6 29 5.80 1.30

4 4 4 3 4 19 3.80 0.45

3 4 3 6 6 22 4.40 1.52

3 3 6 4 4 20 4.00 1.22

2 3 5 4 4 18 3.60 1.14

4 4 3 3 2 16 3.20 0.84

4 3 4 4 3 18 3.60 0.55

4 5 3 5 3 20 4.00 1.00

2 4 4 5 5 20 4.00 1.22

265

5 5 5 5 4 24 4.80 0.45

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

CS11 CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 Total Mean s.d.

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

5 5 6 5 5 26 5.20 0.45

5 5 5 5 4 24 4.80 0.45

5 5 7 5 3 25 5.00 1.41

3 4 6 5 4 22 4.40 1.14

3 5 7 6 3 24 4.80 1.79

3 6 7 6 5 27 5.40 1.52

4 5 6 6 5 26 5.20 0.84

4 5 6 7 6 28 5.60 1.14

1 3 7 6 6 23 4.60 2.51

266

2 7 7 5 5 26 5.20 2.05

2 6 6 4 18 4.50 1.91

1 3 6 6 6 22 4.40 2.30

2 3 7 5 4 21 4.20 1.92

2 5 6 5 5 23 4.60 1.52

3 5 6 4 5 23 4.60 1.14

4 5 5 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

4 5 4 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

6 6 7 7 5 31 6.20 0.84

4 4 7 7 7 29 5.80 1.64

4 5 7 7 6 29 5.80 1.30

3 4 6 7 6 26 5.20 1.64

2 5 6 6 6 25 5.00 1.73

1 4 7 7 7 26 5.20 2.68

4 6 6 7 7 30 6.00 1.22

5 7 7 7 5 31 6.20 1.10

7 4 5 5 3 24 4.80 1.48

267

5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

6 6 4 6 6 28 5.60 0.89

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

5 6 6 6 6 29 5.80 0.45

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

5 6 6 4 5 26 5.20 0.84

5 5 4 3 4 21 4.20 0.84

7 7 7 6 5 32 6.40 0.89

4 5 5 6 6 26 5.20 0.84

5 5 7 5 5 27 5.40 0.89

3 5 5 3 2 18 3.60 1.34

3 3 5 5 5 21 4.20 1.10

3 2 5 3 3 16 3.20 1.10

4 3 3 5 3 18 3.60 0.89

3 4 4 4 3 18 3.60 0.55

268

3 2 1 1 2 9 1.80 0.84

CS11 CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 Total Mean s.d.

3 1 2 3 4 13 2.60 1.14

3 2 5 4 4 18 3.60 1.14

4 6 7 6 6 29 5.80 1.10

7 6 7 4 5 29 5.80 1.30

5 7 7 6 7 32 6.40 0.89

5 7 6 6 7 31 6.20 0.84

3 3 7 5 3 21 4.20 1.79

3 5 6 7 4 25 5.00 1.58

4 6 7 7 5 29 5.80 1.30

2 3 5 3 3 16 3.20 1.10

2 3 5 6 5 21 4.20 1.64

3 3 5 7 5 23 4.60 1.67

3 5 5 6 3 22 4.40 1.34

2 3 5 7 3 20 4.00 2.00

5 3 3 6 5 22 4.40 1.34

269

5 2 5 5 3 20 4.00 1.41

3 4 4 5 5 21 4.20 0.84

4 5 5 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

3 4 4 4 4 19 3.80 0.45

4 5 7 6 4 26 5.20 1.30

5 7 7 7 6 32 6.40 0.89

6 6 7 6 6 31 6.20 0.45

6 6 7 5 7 31 6.20 0.84

4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

5 6 7 6 6 30 6.00 0.71

5 1 6 3 3 18 3.60 1.95

4 3 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

5 7 6 5 5 28 5.60 0.89

5 5 6 5 5 26 5.20 0.45

3 4 5 5 4 21 4.20 0.84

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

270

2 4 6 5 4 21 4.20 1.48

4 4 7 4 4 23 4.60 1.34

3 4 6 5 5 23 4.60 1.14

1 2 4 2 2 11 2.20 1.10

4 3 5 3 4 19 3.80 0.84

2 1 2 2 3 10 2.00 0.71

2 4 5 4 4 19 3.80 1.10

4 5 2 4 3 18 3.60 1.14

4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

5 5 5 3 3 21 4.20 1.10

2 4 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

1 1 3 4 4 13 2.60 1.52

3 3 2 2 2 12 2.40 0.55

CS11 CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 Total Mean s.d.

3 4 4 3 3 17 3.40 0.55

3 4 7 5 3 22 4.40 1.67

5 5 3 3 3 19 3.80 1.10

271

3 4 3 4 4 18 3.60 0.55

5 3 7 5 3 23 4.60 1.67

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 2 7 5 5 24 4.80 1.79

5 5 7 5 4 26 5.20 1.10

5 5 7 6 5 28 5.60 0.89

5 7 7 7 7 33 6.60 0.89

1 5 5 5 5 21 4.20 1.79

2 5 6 4 5 22 4.40 1.52

5 4 5 5 6 25 5.00 0.71

4 6 7 7 5 29 5.80 1.30

5 5 6 5 5 26 5.20 0.45

5 5 6 6 6 28 5.60 0.55

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

6 5 5 5 5 26 5.20 0.45

272

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

6 5 5 6 5 27 5.40 0.55

5 4 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

5 5 6 5 4 25 5.00 0.71

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

6 7 7 7 6 33 6.60 0.55

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 6 6 6 6 31 6.20 0.45

4 7 5 5 5 26 5.20 1.10

273

5 5 7 5 7 29 5.80 1.10

3 6 4 5 5 23 4.60 1.14

3 6 7 5 5 26 5.20 1.48

3 5 7 5 5 25 5.00 1.41

3 5 3 3 5 19 3.80 1.10

3 3 5 3 5 19 3.80 1.10

2 5 7 5 4 23 4.60 1.82

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

CS11 CS12 CS13 CS14 CS15 Total Mean s.d.

3 3 4 4 3 17 3.40 0.55

1 5 5 5 5 21 4.20 1.79

4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

3 4 5 4 3 19 3.80 0.84

2 2 5 3 3 15 3.00 1.22

3 5 7 5 5 25 5.00 1.41

4 5 5 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

7 5 7 6 6 31 6.20 0.84

274

3 4 5 5 5 22 4.40 0.89

4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

3 5 7 5 5 25 5.00 1.41

2 4 6 5 5 22 4.40 1.52

4 5 6 5 5 25 5.00 0.71

3 3 5 5 5 21 4.20 1.10

4 3 5 5 3 20 4.00 1.00

2 3 5 4 4 18 3.60 1.14

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

2 3 5 4 3 17 3.40 1.14

3 5 5 5 3 21 4.20 1.10

5 5 5 4 5 24 4.80 0.45

2 3 3 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

4 5 4 3 3 19 3.80 0.84

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

2 4 7 4 3 20 4.00 1.87

3 2 2 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

275

3 3 4 4 3 17 3.40 0.55

2 3 3 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

4 3 7 3 2 19 3.80 1.92

2 2 6 4 3 17 3.40 1.67

3 4 6 4 4 21 4.20 1.10

2 4 7 5 4 22 4.40 1.82

5 2 7 5 4 23 4.60 1.82

4.08 4.62 5.51 5.06 4.72 23.97 4.80 0.53

1.49 1.35 1.30 1.30 1.30 5.15 1.35 0.08

2.23 1.81 1.70 1.70 1.69

Horizontal and Informal Communication Subscale

Communication Climate Subscale

CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Total Mean s.d.

5 6 6 7 6 30 6.00 0.71

5 5 4 2 3 19 3.80 1.30

7 6 6 3 5 27 5.40 1.52

3 4 2 5 6 20 4.00 1.58

276

3 3 1 3 2 12 2.40 0.89

2 2 2 3 2 11 2.20 0.45

5 5 6 6 5 27 5.40 0.55

4 3 2 4 3 16 3.20 0.84

6 6 6 6 5 29 5.80 0.45

4 3 5 6 5 23 4.60 1.14

3 4 5 5 5 22 4.40 0.89

3 5 5 5 3 21 4.20 1.10

6 5 5 4 4 24 4.80 0.84

5 4 5 4 4 22 4.40 0.55

1 1 2 2 2 8 1.60 0.55

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

2 2 5 5 4 18 3.60 1.52

6 5 4 5 5 25 5.00 0.71

6 5 4 5 5 25 5.00 0.71

6 5 4 5 5 25 5.00 0.71

277

5 5 6 6 6 28 5.60 0.55

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

1 2 2 3 3 11 2.20 0.84

3 3 3 4 2 15 3.00 0.71

4 5 5 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

3 6 5 5 3 22 4.40 1.34

3 5 4 5 3 20 4.00 1.00

3 6 3 3 5 20 4.00 1.41

5 7 5 6 5 28 5.60 0.89

3 4 3 2 2 14 2.80 0.84

5 5 5 5 6 26 5.20 0.45

2 4 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

6 6 5 7 6 30 6.00 0.71

6 4 4 6 7 27 5.40 1.34

7 7 5 6 6 31 6.20 0.84

5 6 6 2 6 25 5.00 1.73

278

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

3 5 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.89

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

2 3 3 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Total Mean s.d.

3 4 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

2 4 3 2 3 14 2.80 0.84

5 7 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.71

2 4 3 4 3 16 3.20 0.84

1 2 4 3 3 13 2.60 1.14

2 4 3 4 2 15 3.00 1.00

3 1 1 1 1 7 1.40 0.89

3 4 3 4 3 17 3.40 0.55

2 3 1 4 3 13 2.60 1.14

2 3 3 2 3 13 2.60 0.55

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 6 7 34 6.80 0.45

279

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 7 31 6.20 0.45

1 1 2 2 3 9 1.80 0.84

2 2 4 4 4 16 3.20 1.10

3 4 3 2 3 15 3.00 0.71

4 1 3 2 2 12 2.40 1.14

3 5 5 5 2 20 4.00 1.41

3 6 4 5 4 22 4.40 1.14

2 6 4 6 2 20 4.00 2.00

1 3 4 4 1 13 2.60 1.52

2 5 3 4 2 16 3.20 1.30

6 5 4 5 5 25 5.00 0.71

1 5 1 6 2 15 3.00 2.35

2 6 1 6 4 19 3.80 2.28

2 5 1 3 2 13 2.60 1.52

280

1 4 2 2 1 10 2.00 1.22

3 5 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.89

3 6 4 5 3 21 4.20 1.30

2 7 3 5 2 19 3.80 2.17

3 6 3 5 2 19 3.80 1.64

3 5 3 3 2 16 3.20 1.10

2 5 3 5 3 18 3.60 1.34

2 7 4 5 4 22 4.40 1.82

5 4 4 4 5 22 4.40 0.55

7 6 5 5 7 30 6.00 1.00

4 5 5 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

6 3 7 7 4 27 5.40 1.82

5 5 6 5 6 27 5.40 0.55

6 6 7 7 7 33 6.60 0.55

4 4 3 3 7 21 4.20 1.64

3 5 5 6 4 23 4.60 1.14

CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Total Mean s.d.

281

5 6 4 6 6 27 5.40 0.89

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

5 7 7 5 7 31 6.20 1.10

7 7 6 7 7 34 6.80 0.45

6 5 6 6 7 30 6.00 0.71

6 6 6 6 7 31 6.20 0.45

3 3 3 2 1 12 2.40 0.89

2 3 4 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

5 4 3 5 6 23 4.60 1.14

5 4 5 6 6 26 5.20 0.84

7 4 5 5 6 27 5.40 1.14

1 4 3 3 3 14 2.80 1.10

2 2 3 2 1 10 2.00 0.71

2 2 3 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

3 3 2 4 3 15 3.00 0.71

1 4 2 2 2 11 2.20 1.10

2 2 3 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

282

1 2 2 2 1 8 1.60 0.55

4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

2 1 3 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

2 2 4 3 3 14 2.80 0.84

2 2 1 3 1 9 1.80 0.84

1 2 3 4 1 11 2.20 1.30

2 3 3 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

4 3 3 2 2 14 2.80 0.84

1 3 3 3 2 12 2.40 0.89

3 3 3 4 3 16 3.20 0.45

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

3 3 4 3 4 17 3.40 0.55

3 3 3 4 4 17 3.40 0.55

3 5 3 4 3 18 3.60 0.89

3 4 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

283

1 2 3 4 4 14 2.80 1.30

3 4 5 4 4 20 4.00 0.71

4 2 4 4 5 19 3.80 1.10

3 5 4 3 4 19 3.80 0.84

4 5 5 4 3 21 4.20 0.84

4 7 5 4 4 24 4.80 1.30

3 5 4 6 3 21 4.20 1.30

3 4 4 5 3 19 3.80 0.84

3 4 4 6 3 20 4.00 1.22

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Total Mean s.d.

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

4 4 5 6 3 22 4.40 1.14

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

1 6 2 6 2 17 3.40 2.41

2 5 2 4 2 15 3.00 1.41

284

2 5 2 5 1 15 3.00 1.87

2 5 2 4 1 14 2.80 1.64

2 7 3 6 1 19 3.80 2.59

2 7 2 3 1 15 3.00 2.35

1 6 2 2 1 12 2.40 2.07

1 3 2 4 1 11 2.20 1.30

1 4 2 3 1 11 2.20 1.30

1 4 1 3 1 10 2.00 1.41

2 4 1 3 1 11 2.20 1.30

1 3 2 3 1 10 2.00 1.00

1 5 2 4 1 13 2.60 1.82

2 4 1 3 1 11 2.20 1.30

1 3 3 3 1 11 2.20 1.10

2 6 3 5 2 18 3.60 1.82

2 6 2 5 1 16 3.20 2.17

1 5 1 3 2 12 2.40 1.67

1 2 2 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

285

2 3 2 3 1 11 2.20 0.84

2 2 2 3 2 11 2.20 0.45

1 2 2 3 1 9 1.80 0.84

2 4 3 5 4 18 3.60 1.14

3 5 3 4 4 19 3.80 0.84

5 4 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

2 6 4 6 4 22 4.40 1.67

2 6 2 6 2 18 3.60 2.19

3 4 4 6 3 20 4.00 1.22

3 4 5 6 3 21 4.20 1.30

5 6 5 6 5 27 5.40 0.55

5 6 5 6 5 27 5.40 0.55

1 3 3 5 3 15 3.00 1.41

3 3 4 4 1 15 3.00 1.22

2 3 4 5 1 15 3.00 1.58

3 3 3 4 2 15 3.00 0.71

3 5 5 5 5 23 4.60 0.89

286

2 2 5 5 3 17 3.40 1.52

3 4 2 2 1 12 2.40 1.14

1 3 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.89

1 2 3 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

3 3 3 4 4 17 3.40 0.55

2 2 3 3 1 11 2.20 0.84

CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Total Mean s.d.

1 3 4 4 3 15 3.00 1.22

3 2 4 2 3 14 2.80 0.84

2 3 3 5 3 16 3.20 1.10

2 4 4 5 3 18 3.60 1.14

2 5 5 5 3 20 4.00 1.41

2 3 3 6 4 18 3.60 1.52

2 3 2 4 3 14 2.80 0.84

2 3 3 5 3 16 3.20 1.10

1 3 4 5 3 16 3.20 1.48

2 3 2 2 1 10 2.00 0.71

287

2 3 2 2 1 10 2.00 0.71

1 3 1 2 2 9 1.80 0.84

1 2 1 2 1 7 1.40 0.55

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 3 3 4 1 14 2.80 1.10

2 4 4 5 3 18 3.60 1.14

2 3 3 3 1 12 2.40 0.89

1 4 3 4 3 15 3.00 1.22

1 4 2 2 2 11 2.20 1.10

3 4 3 7 3 20 4.00 1.73

3 4 4 6 4 21 4.20 1.10

1 5 4 5 1 16 3.20 2.05

3 3 5 5 5 21 4.20 1.10

3 3 4 7 4 21 4.20 1.64

3 1 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.71

1 4 2 4 1 12 2.40 1.52

1 1 3 1 1 7 1.40 0.89

288

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

2 3 3 3 1 12 2.40 0.89

3 4 3 3 2 15 3.00 0.71

2 2 3 5 3 15 3.00 1.22

2 4 4 5 2 17 3.40 1.34

2 2 2 3 1 10 2.00 0.71

1 3 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.71

3 3 4 4 4 18 3.60 0.55

2 2 3 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

3 2 1 1 1 8 1.60 0.89

1 1 2 5 3 12 2.40 1.67

2 3 1 2 2 10 2.00 0.71

1 4 3 3 3 14 2.80 1.10

3 4 2 3 2 14 2.80 0.84

3 3 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.45

4 4 4 5 5 22 4.40 0.55

2 3 5 4 5 19 3.80 1.30

289

2 2 3 2 4 13 2.60 0.89

CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Total Mean s.d.

2 3 4 4 5 18 3.60 1.14

3 3 1 4 7 18 3.60 2.19

1 3 1 6 5 16 3.20 2.28

1 2 3 1 3 10 2.00 1.00

4 3 3 3 4 17 3.40 0.55

3 4 3 5 5 20 4.00 1.00

3 3 3 2 4 15 3.00 0.71

3 4 4 5 5 21 4.20 0.84

3 5 2 5 7 22 4.40 1.95

4 5 3 5 6 23 4.60 1.14

3 4 2 5 5 19 3.80 1.30

2 3 4 5 5 19 3.80 1.30

5 5 3 5 2 20 4.00 1.41

2 4 3 4 3 16 3.20 0.84

3 4 3 5 3 18 3.60 0.89

290

4 5 4 6 4 23 4.60 0.89

4 5 5 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

3 4 4 5 3 19 3.80 0.84

3 5 4 5 2 19 3.80 1.30

2 2 5 6 3 18 3.60 1.82

3 4 4 6 3 20 4.00 1.22

3 5 4 6 3 21 4.20 1.30

4 6 4 6 4 24 4.80 1.10

3 5 4 6 4 22 4.40 1.14

4 4 5 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 4 6 6 4 24 4.80 1.10

3 4 4 6 4 21 4.20 1.10

2 7 4 6 4 23 4.60 1.95

291

3 5 5 5 6 24 4.80 1.10

5 6 5 5 7 28 5.60 0.89

3 7 7 7 7 31 6.20 1.79

5 5 5 5 5 25 5.00 0.00

3 5 4 5 4 21 4.20 0.84

3 5 5 6 6 25 5.00 1.22

3 3 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.00

3 3 5 4 5 20 4.00 1.00

3 3 3 5 4 18 3.60 0.89

1 1 3 5 3 13 2.60 1.67

1 4 3 5 2 15 3.00 1.58

1 4 3 4 5 17 3.40 1.52

1 4 1 5 3 14 2.80 1.79

CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 CS20 Total Mean s.d.

1 2 2 5 3 13 2.60 1.52

4 5 3 3 4 19 3.80 0.84

2 3 1 3 2 11 2.20 0.84

292

2 4 3 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

1 3 4 4 1 13 2.60 1.52

4 3 4 5 5 21 4.20 0.84

3 5 4 5 6 23 4.60 1.14

6 6 5 5 5 27 5.40 0.55

3 3 5 5 5 21 4.20 1.10

2 3 2 4 5 16 3.20 1.30

1 3 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.89

3 3 2 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

2 3 2 3 2 12 2.40 0.55

2 3 3 2 2 12 2.40 0.55

1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

2 2 2 5 2 13 2.60 1.34

1 3 3 4 2 13 2.60 1.14

2 2 1 4 3 12 2.40 1.14

4 3 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

4 5 5 5 5 24 4.80 0.45

293

2 2 3 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

2 1 4 3 2 12 2.40 1.14

1 2 4 3 1 11 2.20 1.30

1 2 2 3 1 9 1.80 0.84

1 3 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.89

2 2 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 4 2 12 2.40 0.89

1 3 4 3 2 13 2.60 1.14

3 4 1 4 3 15 3.00 1.22

3 3 3 2 3 14 2.80 0.45

2 4 3 3 2 14 2.80 0.84

2.92 3.92 3.51 4.20 3.37 17.92 3.58 0.49

1.56 1.50 1.42 1.46 1.68 6.22 1.52 0.10

Communication Climate Subscale

Top Management Communication

CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 Total Mean s.d.

294

7 6 6 6 6 31 6.20 0.45

4 3 2 4 4 17 3.40 0.89

6 6 6 7 6 31 6.20 0.45

7 1 2 3 4 17 3.40 2.30

3 3 2 4 4 16 3.20 0.84

2 2 1 4 3 12 2.40 1.14

6 6 5 6 6 29 5.80 0.45

5 6 4 5 5 25 5.00 0.71

7 7 6 5 5 30 6.00 1.00

4 3 3 5 5 20 4.00 1.00

6 4 4 5 6 25 5.00 1.00

3 4 4 5 3 19 3.80 0.84

4 7 6 4 5 26 5.20 1.30

5 5 4 4 4 22 4.40 0.55

1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

295

5 6 5 4 3 23 4.60 1.14

6 6 6 5 5 28 5.60 0.55

5 6 6 5 5 27 5.40 0.55

5 6 6 5 5 27 5.40 0.55

5 7 6 6 7 31 6.20 0.84

5 5 5 6 6 27 5.40 0.55

5 7 6 5 6 29 5.80 0.84

5 2 2 3 3 15 3.00 1.22

3 3 2 4 3 15 3.00 0.71

5 6 4 6 5 26 5.20 0.84

4 3 3 6 4 20 4.00 1.22

3 5 3 5 4 20 4.00 1.00

3 5 3 3 3 17 3.40 0.89

3 2 1 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

5 1 1 4 4 15 3.00 1.87

3 3 4 5 4 19 3.80 0.84

2 2 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.55

296

5 6 6 7 6 30 6.00 0.71

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 6 7 6 5 31 6.20 0.84

3 3 2 6 6 20 4.00 1.87

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

3 1 2 4 4 14 2.80 1.30

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

4 2 2 3 3 14 2.80 0.84

CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 Total Mean s.d.

4 2 2 4 4 16 3.20 1.10

3 2 2 4 3 14 2.80 0.84

6 6 7 6 5 30 6.00 0.71

5 2 2 4 3 16 3.20 1.30

4 1 3 3 3 14 2.80 1.10

2 3 3 4 5 17 3.40 1.14

5 1 3 3 3 15 3.00 1.41

3 1 1 3 3 11 2.20 1.10

297

2 2 2 4 3 13 2.60 0.89

4 2 2 2 3 13 2.60 0.89

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 7 7 35 7.00 0.00

6 6 6 6 6 30 6.00 0.00

7 7 7 6 7 34 6.80 0.45

5 3 2 3 4 17 3.40 1.14

4 1 1 1 3 10 2.00 1.41

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

1 1 2 4 1 9 1.80 1.30

4 4 2 5 4 19 3.80 1.10

4 5 3 6 4 22 4.40 1.14

2 2 2 4 2 12 2.40 0.89

2 2 2 5 2 13 2.60 1.34

2 2 1 5 2 12 2.40 1.52

298

2 1 1 5 2 11 2.20 1.64

1 1 1 2 1 6 1.20 0.45

1 1 1 5 3 11 2.20 1.79

2 1 1 6 2 12 2.40 2.07

1 2 1 5 2 11 2.20 1.64

2 2 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.55

3 1 2 5 3 14 2.80 1.48

3 3 2 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

3 2 2 5 3 15 3.00 1.22

1 1 1 4 3 10 2.00 1.41

2 7 2 3 3 17 3.40 2.07

2 2 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.55

4 4 3 4 4 19 3.80 0.45

5 6 6 6 6 29 5.80 0.45

4 3 3 5 4 19 3.80 0.84

6 6 6 7 7 32 6.40 0.55

7 4 2 5 5 23 4.60 1.82

299

6 7 7 7 5 32 6.40 0.89

7 7 7 7 5 33 6.60 0.89

6 7 4 6 5 28 5.60 1.14

CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 Total Mean s.d.

7 7 5 5 5 29 5.80 1.10

3 1 1 3 3 11 2.20 1.10

6 6 6 4 6 28 5.60 0.89

3 7 7 7 7 31 6.20 1.79

6 7 6 6 6 31 6.20 0.45

6 7 7 7 6 33 6.60 0.55

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 2 2 3 2 12 2.40 0.55

7 7 5 2 6 27 5.40 2.07

7 4 5 4 5 25 5.00 1.22

4 7 7 6 6 30 6.00 1.22

3 1 1 4 4 13 2.60 1.52

3 3 2 2 2 12 2.40 0.55

300

1 1 1 4 4 11 2.20 1.64

4 1 1 4 3 13 2.60 1.52

4 1 2 3 3 13 2.60 1.14

2 1 2 5 4 14 2.80 1.64

3 1 1 3 3 11 2.20 1.10

5 5 4 5 4 23 4.60 0.55

1 1 2 2 2 8 1.60 0.55

2 2 1 3 3 11 2.20 0.84

3 2 4 4 3 16 3.20 0.84

4 1 1 3 3 12 2.40 1.34

4 1 2 3 3 13 2.60 1.14

2 1 1 4 2 10 2.00 1.22

4 2 2 3 3 14 2.80 0.84

3 4 3 3 4 17 3.40 0.55

4 2 2 5 4 17 3.40 1.34

3 1 3 4 4 15 3.00 1.22

3 2 2 5 3 15 3.00 1.22

301

5 3 3 4 4 19 3.80 0.84

2 2 6 4 3 17 3.40 1.67

3 2 1 4 4 14 2.80 1.30

4 3 3 4 4 18 3.60 0.55

3 2 3 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

3 1 3 4 3 14 2.80 1.10

5 4 3 4 4 20 4.00 0.71

3 3 4 3 4 17 3.40 0.55

5 4 4 4 4 21 4.20 0.45

5 4 3 4 4 20 4.00 0.71

4 3 3 6 4 20 4.00 1.22

3 3 6 6 3 21 4.20 1.64

3 6 3 6 3 21 4.20 1.64

3 4 3 6 3 19 3.80 1.30

3 4 3 6 3 19 3.80 1.30

CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 Total Mean s.d.

3 4 3 6 3 19 3.80 1.30

302

3 4 4 5 4 20 4.00 0.71

4 4 4 5 4 21 4.20 0.45

3 1 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

1 1 1 3 2 8 1.60 0.89

4 1 1 3 3 12 2.40 1.34

1 1 1 2 2 7 1.40 0.55

1 1 1 6 2 11 2.20 2.17

1 1 1 3 3 9 1.80 1.10

1 1 1 3 1 7 1.40 0.89

1 1 1 3 3 9 1.80 1.10

1 1 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.00

1 1 1 3 2 8 1.60 0.89

1 2 1 3 3 10 2.00 1.00

1 1 1 3 2 8 1.60 0.89

1 1 1 3 2 8 1.60 0.89

1 2 1 3 3 10 2.00 1.00

2 1 2 2 2 9 1.80 0.45

303

3 2 1 6 4 16 3.20 1.92

1 1 1 6 1 10 2.00 2.24

2 1 1 4 2 10 2.00 1.22

2 1 1 4 1 9 1.80 1.30

2 2 1 3 2 10 2.00 0.71

1 1 1 3 1 7 1.40 0.89

1 1 1 5 2 10 2.00 1.73

3 1 1 7 4 16 3.20 2.49

5 2 3 6 5 21 4.20 1.64

3 3 3 5 4 18 3.60 0.89

4 4 2 6 3 19 3.80 1.48

4 4 4 6 5 23 4.60 0.89

6 5 5 6 5 27 5.40 0.55

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

6 4 5 4 6 25 5.00 1.00

5 5 5 6 5 26 5.20 0.45

2 3 2 5 3 15 3.00 1.22

304

3 2 3 5 2 15 3.00 1.22

3 2 2 7 3 17 3.40 2.07

3 2 1 5 3 14 2.80 1.48

3 3 3 5 5 19 3.80 1.10

5 3 5 3 3 19 3.80 1.10

2 1 1 3 3 10 2.00 1.00

2 1 2 3 3 11 2.20 0.84

2 1 3 4 2 12 2.40 1.14

3 2 3 3 3 14 2.80 0.45

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 Total Mean s.d.

2 2 2 3 2 11 2.20 0.45

2 1 3 3 3 12 2.40 0.89

4 2 2 5 3 16 3.20 1.30

5 1 3 3 4 16 3.20 1.48

3 2 1 4 4 14 2.80 1.30

3 1 2 6 5 17 3.40 2.07

305

4 1 1 5 2 13 2.60 1.82

2 1 2 3 3 11 2.20 0.84

3 2 1 7 4 17 3.40 2.30

1 1 1 4 1 8 1.60 1.34

1 1 1 3 2 8 1.60 0.89

3 2 2 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

2 1 1 4 3 11 2.20 1.30

3 1 2 5 2 13 2.60 1.52

3 2 2 4 4 15 3.00 1.00

4 2 2 3 3 14 2.80 0.84

1 1 1 3 3 9 1.80 1.10

2 1 2 5 3 13 2.60 1.52

3 1 1 3 2 10 2.00 1.00

3 3 3 4 3 16 3.20 0.45

3 2 2 6 5 18 3.60 1.82

4 1 1 7 6 19 3.80 2.77

7 3 3 7 6 26 5.20 2.05

306

4 2 2 4 4 16 3.20 1.10

7 1 2 6 2 18 3.60 2.70

2 1 2 5 3 13 2.60 1.52

4 1 3 4 5 17 3.40 1.52

5 2 2 4 4 17 3.40 1.34

5 1 3 4 4 17 3.40 1.52

5 1 4 2 5 17 3.40 1.82

4 1 1 5 1 12 2.40 1.95

3 1 3 5 5 17 3.40 1.67

3 2 2 2 2 11 2.20 0.45

4 1 3 5 4 17 3.40 1.52

2 1 3 4 4 14 2.80 1.30

2 1 2 2 1 8 1.60 0.55

3 2 2 5 3 15 3.00 1.22

1 2 2 4 2 11 2.20 1.10

4 1 1 4 2 12 2.40 1.52

4 1 1 2 2 10 2.00 1.22

307

2 1 1 5 2 11 2.20 1.64

4 2 4 5 3 18 3.60 1.14

3 4 2 3 3 15 3.00 0.71

4 1 2 1 1 9 1.80 1.30

2 2 4 3 3 14 2.80 0.84

CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 Total Mean s.d.

4 2 4 3 3 16 3.20 0.84

2 2 3 3 3 13 2.60 0.55

3 1 1 5 3 13 2.60 1.67

4 2 1 5 2 14 2.80 1.64

5 3 3 5 5 21 4.20 1.10

5 3 3 4 3 18 3.60 0.89

2 1 1 5 5 14 2.80 2.05

4 2 2 5 3 16 3.20 1.30

5 3 2 6 5 21 4.20 1.64

5 1 3 6 4 19 3.80 1.92

3 2 3 2 4 14 2.80 0.84

308

5 2 2 2 5 16 3.20 1.64

3 5 3 2 3 16 3.20 1.10

5 2 2 4 3 16 3.20 1.30

3 1 2 5 4 15 3.00 1.58

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 5 4 5 4 22 4.40 0.55

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 4 4 6 5 23 4.60 0.89

4 5 3 6 4 22 4.40 1.14

3 3 3 6 4 19 3.80 1.30

3 4 3 6 4 20 4.00 1.22

3 3 3 6 4 19 3.80 1.30

4 4 4 6 3 21 4.20 1.10

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

309

4 4 4 6 4 22 4.40 0.89

4 5 5 6 4 24 4.80 0.84

4 4 3 6 4 21 4.20 1.10

4 2 1 5 4 16 3.20 1.64

4 5 4 5 5 23 4.60 0.55

5 5 6 7 7 30 6.00 1.00

7 5 7 7 7 33 6.60 0.89

5 5 5 7 7 29 5.80 1.10

5 6 5 5 5 26 5.20 0.45

5 7 5 4 5 26 5.20 1.10

6 2 2 5 5 20 4.00 1.87

5 2 1 5 5 18 3.60 1.95

5 2 2 5 5 19 3.80 1.64

5 2 2 5 5 19 3.80 1.64

5 2 1 5 5 18 3.60 1.95

5 1 2 5 4 17 3.40 1.82

4 1 3 3 5 16 3.20 1.48

310

CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 Total Mean s.d.

5 1 1 3 4 14 2.80 1.79

4 3 3 3 1 14 2.80 1.10

2 3 3 3 4 15 3.00 0.71

4 3 3 2 2 14 2.80 0.84

3 3 3 2 2 13 2.60 0.55

5 2 1 5 3 16 3.20 1.79

4 3 4 5 3 19 3.80 0.84

4 1 3 5 4 17 3.40 1.52

5 2 2 2 3 14 2.80 1.30

4 3 3 3 3 16 3.20 0.45

4 2 5 4 3 18 3.60 1.14

3 1 1 3 2 10 2.00 1.00

3 1 1 4 2 11 2.20 1.30

3 1 1 3 3 11 2.20 1.10

1 1 1 3 1 7 1.40 0.89

3 1 1 2 2 9 1.80 0.84

311

3 1 1 3 3 11 2.20 1.10

3 1 2 4 2 12 2.40 1.14

5 4 5 3 3 20 4.00 1.00

5 4 4 3 5 21 4.20 0.84

2 2 2 4 3 13 2.60 0.89

3 2 1 3 4 13 2.60 1.14

1 1 1 3 2 8 1.60 0.89

2 1 2 4 4 13 2.60 1.34

2 2 2 3 3 12 2.40 0.55

2 2 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.00

3 1 2 3 2 11 2.20 0.84

4 2 1 4 2 13 2.60 1.34

4 1 3 4 4 16 3.20 1.30

3 1 3 3 4 14 2.80 1.10

2 2 2 2 2 10 2.00 0.00

1 2 4 4 4 15 3.00 1.41

3.63 2.81 2.85 4.36 3.66 17.30 3.46 0.65

312

1.61 1.91 1.74 1.45 1.43 6.85 1.63 0.20

Top Management Communication

Organizational Commitment

Loyalty Subscale

OC2 OC4 OC7 Total Mean s.d.

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

7 1 3 11 3.67 3.06

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

1 3 6 10 3.33 2.52

5 2 4 11 3.67 1.53

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.00

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

5 6 6 17 5.67 0.58

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

5 6 4 15 5.00 1.00

313

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

2 1 2 5 1.67 0.58

2 1 2 5 1.67 0.58

2 1 2 5 1.67 0.58

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 6 5 13 4.33 2.08

6 1 1 8 2.67 2.89

6 1 1 8 2.67 2.89

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

3 4 3 10 3.33 0.58

2 5 3 10 3.33 1.53

2 5 6 13 4.33 2.08

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

314

5 2 2 9 3.00 1.73

5 3 1 9 3.00 2.00

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

5 3 2 10 3.33 1.53

7 3 1 11 3.67 3.06

1 3 4 8 2.67 1.53

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

1 4 5 10 3.33 2.08

5 2 4 11 3.67 1.53

2 6 5 13 4.33 2.08

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

3 1 2 6 2.00 1.00

OC2 OC4 OC7 Total Mean s.d.

3 2 2 7 2.33 0.58

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

1 4 6 11 3.67 2.52

315

4 2 1 7 2.33 1.53

3 1 2 6 2.00 1.00

2 1 3 6 2.00 1.00

3 2 2 7 2.33 0.58

7 1 2 10 3.33 3.21

3 3 2 8 2.67 0.58

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

1 4 4 9 3.00 1.73

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 4 3 8 2.67 1.53

1 5 4 10 3.33 2.08

6 2 3 11 3.67 2.08

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

7 3 7 17 5.67 2.31

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

316

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

2 5 5 12 4.00 1.73

4 2 4 10 3.33 1.15

4 2 3 9 3.00 1.00

4 2 3 9 3.00 1.00

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 7 15 5.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 3 1 6 2.00 1.00

3 3 1 7 2.33 1.15

2 1 2 5 1.67 0.58

6 2 5 13 4.33 2.08

1 7 3 11 3.67 3.06

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

6 3 1 10 3.33 2.52

317

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

4 7 7 18 6.00 1.73

2 5 3 10 3.33 1.53

1 5 1 7 2.33 2.31

5 6 4 15 5.00 1.00

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

3 2 4 9 3.00 1.00

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

OC2 OC4 OC7 Total Mean s.d.

4 2 1 7 2.33 1.53

7 1 3 11 3.67 3.06

4 6 4 14 4.67 1.15

1 7 1 9 3.00 3.46

2 3 3 8 2.67 0.58

4 5 4 13 4.33 0.58

6 2 5 13 4.33 2.08

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

318

5 3 5 13 4.33 1.15

5 6 7 18 6.00 1.00

4 1 7 12 4.00 3.00

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.58

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 1 2 9 3.00 2.65

1 2 7 10 3.33 3.21

7 1 4 12 4.00 3.00

6 1 5 12 4.00 2.65

7 2 2 11 3.67 2.89

7 2 2 11 3.67 2.89

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 1 1 8 2.67 2.89

319

7 7 3 17 5.67 2.31

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

7 2 2 11 3.67 2.89

6 3 2 11 3.67 2.08

5 2 4 11 3.67 1.53

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

4 2 5 11 3.67 1.53

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

6 1 3 10 3.33 2.52

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

5 2 6 13 4.33 2.08

3 1 5 9 3.00 2.00

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

5 1 5 11 3.67 2.31

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

320

4 5 4 13 4.33 0.58

3 4 4 11 3.67 0.58

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

OC2 OC4 OC7 Total Mean s.d.

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

3 4 4 11 3.67 0.58

2 4 4 10 3.33 1.15

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.58

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

6 1 3 10 3.33 2.52

6 1 1 8 2.67 2.89

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

6 1 7 14 4.67 3.21

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

321

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

5 2 2 9 3.00 1.73

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

6 2 3 11 3.67 2.08

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

3 4 5 12 4.00 1.00

4 4 2 10 3.33 1.15

6 3 5 14 4.67 1.53

322

4 4 6 14 4.67 1.15

2 4 3 9 3.00 1.00

2 4 3 9 3.00 1.00

2 3 4 9 3.00 1.00

5 7 4 16 5.33 1.53

5 5 2 12 4.00 1.73

6 3 5 14 4.67 1.53

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

5 1 1 7 2.33 2.31

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

5 2 2 9 3.00 1.73

1 2 1 4 1.33 0.58

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

6 3 1 10 3.33 2.52

OC2 OC4 OC7 Total Mean s.d.

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

323

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

7 1 2 10 3.33 3.21

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 3 2 11 3.67 2.08

6 3 1 10 3.33 2.52

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 3 11 3.67 3.06

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

7 6 2 15 5.00 2.65

7 2 3 12 4.00 2.65

6 4 2 12 4.00 2.00

324

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

7 3 2 12 4.00 2.65

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

6 5 3 14 4.67 1.53

6 1 1 8 2.67 2.89

6 2 3 11 3.67 2.08

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

7 3 1 11 3.67 3.06

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

5 3 2 10 3.33 1.53

6 2 3 11 3.67 2.08

7 3 2 12 4.00 2.65

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

6 3 2 11 3.67 2.08

6 2 3 11 3.67 2.08

7 3 3 13 4.33 2.31

325

6 2 4 12 4.00 2.00

7 2 2 11 3.67 2.89

7 3 4 14 4.67 2.08

6 2 3 11 3.67 2.08

5 2 1 8 2.67 2.08

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

5 3 2 10 3.33 1.53

5 4 3 12 4.00 1.00

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

3 3 2 8 2.67 0.58

OC2 OC4 OC7 Total Mean s.d.

5 3 5 13 4.33 1.15

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

6 1 2 9 3.00 2.65

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

5 3 4 12 4.00 1.00

7 3 3 13 4.33 2.31

326

7 3 3 13 4.33 2.31

5 3 1 9 3.00 2.00

5 3 4 12 4.00 1.00

3 4 3 10 3.33 0.58

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

7 3 4 14 4.67 2.08

4 2 1 7 2.33 1.53

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

3 4 3 10 3.33 0.58

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

5 4 3 12 4.00 1.00

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.58

2 4 3 9 3.00 1.00

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

4 4 3 11 3.67 0.58

327

5 2 2 9 3.00 1.73

5 2 3 10 3.33 1.53

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

2 6 3 11 3.67 2.08

2 3 4 9 3.00 1.00

3 3 4 10 3.33 0.58

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

2 3 3 8 2.67 0.58

5 3 7 15 5.00 2.00

5 2 1 8 2.67 2.08

4 1 2 7 2.33 1.53

4 1 3 8 2.67 1.53

4 2 3 9 3.00 1.00

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

7 2 3 12 4.00 2.65

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

7 1 3 11 3.67 3.06

328

5 2 3 10 3.33 1.53

5 2 3 10 3.33 1.53

5 2 3 10 3.33 1.53

7 3 3 13 4.33 2.31

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

OC2 OC4 OC7 Total Mean s.d.

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

5 3 1 9 3.00 2.00

5 1 3 9 3.00 2.00

5 3 2 10 3.33 1.53

5 1 3 9 3.00 2.00

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

4 3 3 10 3.33 0.58

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 3 3 12 4.00 1.73

329

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

7 1 6 14 4.67 3.21

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

7 2 1 10 3.33 3.21

6 2 1 9 3.00 2.65

3 5 2 10 3.33 1.53

5 4 3 12 4.00 1.00

6 2 2 10 3.33 2.31

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

6 1 2 9 3.00 2.65

6 3 2 11 3.67 2.08

2 1 2 5 1.67 0.58

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.58

7 1 1 9 3.00 3.46

2 5 3 10 3.33 1.53

330

3 1 1 5 1.67 1.15

7 3 1 11 3.67 3.06

7 3 2 12 4.00 2.65

7 4 2 13 4.33 2.52

4.96 2.71 2.76 10.42 3.47 1.29

1.90 1.56 1.65 3.38 0.18

3.62 2.42 2.73 8.77

0.16

Loyalty Subscale

Organizational Commitment

Identification Subscale

OC1 OC5 OC8 Total Mean s.d.

7 6 1 14 4.67 3.21

5 4 7 16 5.33 1.53

6 6 4 16 5.33 1.15

7 4 6 17 5.67 1.53

3 3 5 11 3.67 1.15

331

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

5 6 2 13 4.33 2.08

7 7 2 16 5.33 2.89

7 7 2 16 5.33 2.89

6 6 4 16 5.33 1.15

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

5 6 4 15 5.00 1.00

6 6 4 16 5.33 1.15

6 5 4 15 5.00 1.00

1 2 7 10 3.33 3.21

7 6 1 14 4.67 3.21

7 6 1 14 4.67 3.21

7 6 1 14 4.67 3.21

1 6 2 9 3.00 2.65

1 6 2 9 3.00 2.65

7 6 2 15 5.00 2.65

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

332

5 5 6 16 5.33 0.58

5 5 6 16 5.33 0.58

3 3 6 12 4.00 1.73

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

7 6 4 17 5.67 1.53

6 5 4 15 5.00 1.00

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

6 5 3 14 4.67 1.53

3 1 5 9 3.00 2.00

6 5 4 15 5.00 1.00

3 3 5 11 3.67 1.15

6 4 1 11 3.67 2.52

7 7 3 17 5.67 2.31

7 5 4 16 5.33 1.53

5 6 1 12 4.00 2.65

6 6 1 13 4.33 2.89

333

3 4 6 13 4.33 1.53

4 2 3 9 3.00 1.00

3 3 2 8 2.67 0.58

OC1 OC5 OC8 Total Mean s.d.

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

3 3 2 8 2.67 0.58

6 6 1 13 4.33 2.89

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

4 1 2 7 2.33 1.53

2 3 3 8 2.67 0.58

3 3 1 7 2.33 1.15

2 3 2 7 2.33 0.58

2 1 1 4 1.33 0.58

2 4 1 7 2.33 1.53

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

334

7 7 4 18 6.00 1.73

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

6 7 1 14 4.67 3.21

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

3 2 2 7 2.33 0.58

4 2 7 13 4.33 2.52

3 2 1 6 2.00 1.00

3 3 7 13 4.33 2.31

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

5 5 6 16 5.33 0.58

5 4 4 13 4.33 0.58

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

2 2 3 7 2.33 0.58

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.00

3 2 6 11 3.67 2.08

335

2 1 7 10 3.33 3.21

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

3 2 2 7 2.33 0.58

3 1 6 10 3.33 2.52

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

3 2 2 7 2.33 0.58

4 1 2 7 2.33 1.53

7 4 4 15 5.00 1.73

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

6 5 5 16 5.33 0.58

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

5 6 5 16 5.33 0.58

7 5 7 19 6.33 1.15

7 4 5 16 5.33 1.53

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

OC1 OC5 OC8 Total Mean s.d.

336

7 6 4 17 5.67 1.53

3 2 6 11 3.67 2.08

7 5 6 18 6.00 1.00

7 7 1 15 5.00 3.46

5 6 2 13 4.33 2.08

6 6 4 16 5.33 1.15

3 2 6 11 3.67 2.08

4 2 6 12 4.00 2.00

3 5 4 12 4.00 1.00

6 6 5 17 5.67 0.58

5 4 6 15 5.00 1.00

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

3 3 5 11 3.67 1.15

3 2 6 11 3.67 2.08

3 4 7 14 4.67 2.08

7 6 7 20 6.67 0.58

337

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

6 5 5 16 5.33 0.58

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

2 2 5 9 3.00 1.73

4 4 7 15 5.00 1.73

4 1 6 11 3.67 2.52

4 3 7 14 4.67 2.08

2 3 7 12 4.00 2.65

3 4 6 13 4.33 1.53

4 2 6 12 4.00 2.00

4 1 6 11 3.67 2.52

3 3 6 12 4.00 1.73

4 3 5 12 4.00 1.00

3 3 4 10 3.33 0.58

4 3 5 12 4.00 1.00

5 3 5 13 4.33 1.15

338

4 3 5 12 4.00 1.00

4 3 6 13 4.33 1.53

4 2 3 9 3.00 1.00

7 5 5 17 5.67 1.15

1 1 6 8 2.67 2.89

4 1 6 11 3.67 2.52

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

4 5 4 13 4.33 0.58

4 5 3 12 4.00 1.00

4 5 4 13 4.33 0.58

4 5 4 13 4.33 0.58

OC1 OC5 OC8 Total Mean s.d.

4 5 4 13 4.33 0.58

6 6 3 15 5.00 1.73

6 5 3 14 4.67 1.53

3 2 1 6 2.00 1.00

3 1 1 5 1.67 1.15

339

2 2 7 11 3.67 2.89

3 5 3 11 3.67 1.15

2 1 7 10 3.33 3.21

3 1 3 7 2.33 1.15

1 2 6 9 3.00 2.65

2 1 7 10 3.33 3.21

2 2 6 10 3.33 2.31

1 2 6 9 3.00 2.65

2 1 7 10 3.33 3.21

2 1 7 10 3.33 3.21

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.00

2 2 2 6 2.00 0.00

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

3 1 2 6 2.00 1.00

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

3 1 6 10 3.33 2.52

340

3 1 3 7 2.33 1.15

3 1 1 5 1.67 1.15

3 1 3 7 2.33 1.15

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

5 3 3 11 3.67 1.15

6 5 5 16 5.33 0.58

6 6 2 14 4.67 2.31

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

6 6 3 15 5.00 1.73

6 6 5 17 5.67 0.58

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

6 5 2 13 4.33 2.08

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

4 3 3 10 3.33 0.58

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

341

4 1 4 9 3.00 1.73

2 2 7 11 3.67 2.89

5 3 2 10 3.33 1.53

3 2 4 9 3.00 1.00

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

7 3 4 14 4.67 2.08

OC1 OC5 OC8 Total Mean s.d.

4 1 1 6 2.00 1.73

4 2 1 7 2.33 1.53

3 3 4 10 3.33 0.58

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 3 4 12 4.00 1.00

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

4 2 4 10 3.33 1.15

1 1 7 9 3.00 3.46

1 1 6 8 2.67 2.89

342

1 1 7 9 3.00 3.46

1 1 7 9 3.00 3.46

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

2 3 7 12 4.00 2.65

1 3 6 10 3.33 2.52

2 3 6 11 3.67 2.08

4 1 6 11 3.67 2.52

4 3 7 14 4.67 2.08

5 3 6 14 4.67 1.53

5 3 7 15 5.00 2.00

4 5 3 12 4.00 1.00

4 3 7 14 4.67 2.08

6 2 6 14 4.67 2.31

1 1 2 4 1.33 0.58

1 2 5 8 2.67 2.08

1 1 5 7 2.33 2.31

343

1 1 5 7 2.33 2.31

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

3 3 7 13 4.33 2.31

5 2 5 12 4.00 1.73

4 2 6 12 4.00 2.00

2 2 7 11 3.67 2.89

5 3 6 14 4.67 1.53

3 2 6 11 3.67 2.08

3 1 6 10 3.33 2.52

1 2 7 10 3.33 3.21

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

4 3 4 11 3.67 0.58

5 3 5 13 4.33 1.15

4 1 3 8 2.67 1.53

1 4 4 9 3.00 1.73

4 5 5 14 4.67 0.58

344

4 3 4 11 3.67 0.58

OC1 OC5 OC8 Total Mean s.d.

5 3 4 12 4.00 1.00

4 7 7 18 6.00 1.73

1 2 4 7 2.33 1.53

1 1 5 7 2.33 2.31

4 3 5 12 4.00 1.00

3 3 6 12 4.00 1.73

5 3 6 14 4.67 1.53

5 1 4 10 3.33 2.08

5 3 6 14 4.67 1.53

4 4 4 12 4.00 0.00

5 3 5 13 4.33 1.15

3 2 4 9 3.00 1.00

5 3 6 14 4.67 1.53

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

3 3 5 11 3.67 1.15

345

6 6 2 14 4.67 2.31

6 5 3 14 4.67 1.53

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 6 2 13 4.33 2.08

4 5 2 11 3.67 1.53

6 5 3 14 4.67 1.53

4 5 3 12 4.00 1.00

6 5 2 13 4.33 2.08

5 5 2 12 4.00 1.73

6 5 3 14 4.67 1.53

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 6 4 15 5.00 1.00

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 2 4 11 3.67 1.53

346

5 3 4 12 4.00 1.00

7 6 1 14 4.67 3.21

5 7 1 13 4.33 3.06

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

5 5 3 13 4.33 1.15

3 5 7 15 5.00 2.00

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

5 4 6 15 5.00 1.00

5 3 5 13 4.33 1.15

3 3 3 9 3.00 0.00

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

3 1 5 9 3.00 2.00

OC1 OC5 OC8 Total Mean s.d.

4 3 4 11 3.67 0.58

4 1 5 10 3.33 2.08

4 2 5 11 3.67 1.53

347

4 1 4 9 3.00 1.73

4 3 5 12 4.00 1.00

5 5 4 14 4.67 0.58

5 4 4 13 4.33 0.58

3 1 4 8 2.67 1.53

3 3 5 11 3.67 1.15

3 2 4 9 3.00 1.00

4 3 4 11 3.67 0.58

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

2 2 7 11 3.67 2.89

6 1 7 14 4.67 3.21

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

1 1 5 7 2.33 2.31

2 2 4 8 2.67 1.15

3 5 5 13 4.33 1.15

4 3 4 11 3.67 0.58

348

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

3 4 4 11 3.67 0.58

4 2 6 12 4.00 2.00

3 3 6 12 4.00 1.73

2 1 7 10 3.33 3.21

2 2 5 9 3.00 1.73

3 1 7 11 3.67 3.06

2 2 5 9 3.00 1.73

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

2 3 4 9 3.00 1.00

4 2 2 8 2.67 1.15

3 4 6 13 4.33 1.53

4.03 3.44 4.24 11.71 3.90 0.42

1.65 1.79 1.83 1.79 0.10

2.73 3.21 3.37 9.30

0.21

Identification Subscale

349

Organizational Commitment

Involvement Subscale

OC3 OC6 OC9 Total Mean s.d.

2 7 6 15 5.00 2.65

5 6 7 18 6.00 1.00

4 5 5 14 4.67 0.58

2 5 1 8 2.67 2.08

4 5 5 14 4.67 0.58

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

2 6 7 15 5.00 2.65

4 7 6 17 5.67 1.53

4 7 7 18 6.00 1.73

2 6 7 15 5.00 2.65

2 6 7 15 5.00 2.65

4 6 7 17 5.67 1.53

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

350

6 5 5 16 5.33 0.58

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

3 6 6 15 5.00 1.73

5 6 6 17 5.67 0.58

1 7 6 14 4.67 3.21

2 6 7 15 5.00 2.65

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

2 6 7 15 5.00 2.65

5 6 7 18 6.00 1.00

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

351

1 7 2 10 3.33 3.21

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

4 6 5 15 5.00 1.00

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

4 6 5 15 5.00 1.00

4 6 6 16 5.33 1.15

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

1 3 1 5 1.67 1.15

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

OC3 OC6 OC9 Total Mean s.d.

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

352

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 5 5 12 4.00 1.73

1 3 7 11 3.67 3.06

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

1 7 6 14 4.67 3.21

1 2 7 10 3.33 3.21

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

2 6 7 15 5.00 2.65

353

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

5 5 7 17 5.67 1.15

7 6 7 20 6.67 0.58

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

3 7 6 16 5.33 2.08

5 7 6 18 6.00 1.00

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

1 5 6 12 4.00 2.65

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

354

1 5 5 11 3.67 2.31

3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53

6 6 4 16 5.33 1.15

7 5 7 19 6.33 1.15

2 4 5 11 3.67 1.53

5 6 5 16 5.33 0.58

OC3 OC6 OC9 Total Mean s.d.

7 6 5 18 6.00 1.00

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

4 5 6 15 5.00 1.00

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

3 4 2 9 3.00 1.00

1 7 6 14 4.67 3.21

1 7 6 14 4.67 3.21

5 4 6 15 5.00 1.00

5 7 5 17 5.67 1.15

355

7 6 4 17 5.67 1.53

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 2 4 8 2.67 1.15

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 5 4 10 3.33 2.08

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

2 5 5 12 4.00 1.73

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 6 14 4.67 3.21

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 7 6 15 5.00 2.65

356

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

2 3 6 11 3.67 2.08

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

3 3 4 10 3.33 0.58

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

5 4 5 14 4.67 0.58

1 2 5 8 2.67 2.08

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

2 5 6 13 4.33 2.08

3 6 6 15 5.00 1.73

3 4 3 10 3.33 0.58

3 5 6 14 4.67 1.53

357

3 5 6 14 4.67 1.53

OC3 OC6 OC9 Total Mean s.d.

3 5 6 14 4.67 1.53

3 6 6 15 5.00 1.73

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

6 6 7 19 6.33 0.58

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

5 6 7 18 6.00 1.00

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

358

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

3 6 6 15 5.00 1.73

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

5 6 7 18 6.00 1.00

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

3 2 7 12 4.00 2.65

4 7 7 18 6.00 1.73

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

4 6 7 17 5.67 1.53

5 5 7 17 5.67 1.15

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

3 4 7 14 4.67 2.08

4 5 6 15 5.00 1.00

4 5 6 15 5.00 1.00

359

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

2 5 6 13 4.33 2.08

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

5 7 6 18 6.00 1.00

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

3 6 6 15 5.00 1.73

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

5 3 7 15 5.00 2.00

5 6 7 18 6.00 1.00

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

7 6 6 19 6.33 0.58

OC3 OC6 OC9 Total Mean s.d.

7 6 6 19 6.33 0.58

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

4 7 7 18 6.00 1.73

360

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

7 1 7 15 5.00 3.46

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

7 6 7 20 6.67 0.58

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

5 6 6 17 5.67 0.58

4 7 7 18 6.00 1.73

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

5 6 6 17 5.67 0.58

361

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

5 7 6 18 6.00 1.00

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

7 7 6 20 6.67 0.58

6 7 5 18 6.00 1.00

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

4 6 7 17 5.67 1.53

5 3 7 15 5.00 2.00

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

7 7 7 21 7.00 0.00

6 3 7 16 5.33 2.08

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

7 6 6 19 6.33 0.58

4 6 6 16 5.33 1.15

7 6 6 19 6.33 0.58

362

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

6 7 7 20 6.67 0.58

5 6 6 17 5.67 0.58

5 2 3 10 3.33 1.53

4 5 5 14 4.67 0.58

7 6 7 20 6.67 0.58

3 5 5 13 4.33 1.15

3 2 3 8 2.67 0.58

OC3 OC6 OC9 Total Mean s.d.

6 6 5 17 5.67 0.58

7 1 4 12 4.00 3.00

5 7 7 19 6.33 1.15

5 2 7 14 4.67 2.52

3 5 5 13 4.33 1.15

3 7 6 16 5.33 2.08

5 6 6 17 5.67 0.58

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

363

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

2 6 5 13 4.33 2.08

3 6 7 16 5.33 2.08

3 5 7 15 5.00 2.00

5 6 6 17 5.67 0.58

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 5 6 13 4.33 2.08

5 5 5 15 5.00 0.00

3 5 6 14 4.67 1.53

2 5 6 13 4.33 2.08

6 6 6 18 6.00 0.00

4 5 7 16 5.33 1.53

2 5 7 14 4.67 2.52

3 5 6 14 4.67 1.53

2 5 7 14 4.67 2.52

1 5 6 12 4.00 2.65

364

3 6 6 15 5.00 1.73

2 5 6 13 4.33 2.08

2 6 7 15 5.00 2.65

3 5 6 14 4.67 1.53

3 5 6 14 4.67 1.53

2 5 6 13 4.33 2.08

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 6 7 14 4.67 3.21

1 4 7 12 4.00 3.00

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

3 6 7 16 5.33 2.08

1 7 6 14 4.67 3.21

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

365

2 5 7 14 4.67 2.52

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

2 5 5 12 4.00 1.73

OC3 OC6 OC9 Total Mean s.d.

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

3 5 5 13 4.33 1.15

3 7 6 16 5.33 2.08

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 6 14 4.67 3.21

3 6 6 15 5.00 1.73

3 5 5 13 4.33 1.15

4 3 5 12 4.00 1.00

2 5 5 12 4.00 1.73

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

366

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

1 6 7 14 4.67 3.21

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

5 4 4 13 4.33 0.58

4 4 2 10 3.33 1.15

1 3 7 11 3.67 3.06

7 1 6 14 4.67 3.21

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

2 6 6 14 4.67 2.31

1 5 7 13 4.33 3.06

3 7 7 17 5.67 2.31

1 3 7 11 3.67 3.06

1 6 6 13 4.33 2.89

1 5 5 11 3.67 2.31

367

2 7 7 16 5.33 2.89

1 7 7 15 5.00 3.46

4 7 6 17 5.67 1.53

3.22 5.96 6.26 15.44 5.15 mean

2.05 1.30 1.03 0.95 s.d.

4.22 1.70 1.07 6.99 Variance

0.40 alpha

Organizational Commitment

Involvement Subscale concluded Raw Data.