Abstract
Leadership coordinates the exploitation of human and other resources in an organization to achieve targeted outcomes. Effective leadership style achieves sustainable long-term success and can motivate employees’ commitment within an organization. Leaders create an affirmative orientation and embody a focus on virtuousness depending on the leadership style to achieve target outcomes. Transactional, transformational, and servant leadership styles vary in how leaders coordinate duties and conduct themselves. This research paper investigates the most effective leadership style to influence positive employee behavior and organizational performance in The Bahamas. A quantitative and qualitative survey of the leadership styles determined the results of this study by evaluating their effect on employee empowerment and organizational commitment. The status of the three leadership styles to empower employees across different age groups, gender, education levels, occupation, service years, and annual salary ranges gave the qualitative results. Management rating by the employees in The Bahamas private sector was the quantitative approach used.
The relationship between the variables was evaluated using the Likelihood Ratio Test. The age group, gender, job type, service years, and annual salary did not influence employee empowerment and commitment to servant leadership. The level of education is positively related to employee commitment and motivation in servant leadership. Transformational leadership was not affected by education level, job type, service years, and annual salary. However, the study indicated that young adults are affected by transformational leadership. Type of occupation is affected by transactional leadership due to the interconnection of employment level and compensation of the variables assessed. The mean leadership management rating was average, whereas the median was above average, using a standard deviation rating of about 2.1. Servant leadership was found to be the most effective leadership style in influencing employee commitment and empowerment.
Introduction
Background
To begin, while no unified definition of leadership exists, there is considerable agreement on the essential components of leadership as provided by modern ideas. Leadership is defined by Rost (1991) and Lussier and Achua (2007) as a partnership between a leader and a follower to affect change for a common purpose. Similarly, Rowe (2007) and Kouzes and Posner (1995) define leadership as the ability to organize people to achieve a common purpose. Leadership may be conceptualized into two categories: 1) leadership theory, which categorizes the attributes, behavior, and talents of the leader to influence the group, and 2) leadership style, which categorizes how the leader inspires the followers (s). In parallel with the many leadership theories, a leader is characterized by the method in which he or she executes his or her style of leadership to encourage employees. This is known as leadership style, and it is classified into numerous types (Jones, 2021), three of which will be discussed below.
Moreover, leaders choose specific interaction styles to support their objectives, which reflect the values and needs of both leaders and followers. Transformational leadership focuses on the quality of relationships with followers, whereas transactional leadership emphasizes cost-benefit. Both leadership styles are necessary for motivating employees to meet organizational goals. Leaders who want to help their followers reach their full potential may encourage them to band together, change their goals, and beliefs of doing things (Ismail et al., 2011).
Furthermore, servant leadership is a leadership style that focuses on helping employees reach their full potential. Servant leadership emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and depicts leaders’ first purpose as serving rather than leading. Servant leaders contribute to their employees’ long-term growth because they personify the organization. Servant leaders were found to be more successful than those who did not serve others (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018).
Additionally, leaders can empower employees by encouraging and accepting employee feedback to improve organizational effectiveness. Emotional connections form between the leader and the employee during this process, which includes involving the employee in decision making processes as well as communicating and sharing information. This creates a positive environment for job satisfaction that is positively associated with job satisfaction. It also increases employee confidence in his or her abilities to perform more effectively (Mufti et al., 2020).
According to the literature on organizational behavior, organizational commitment is a component of work-related attitudes. A leader’s ability to properly implement transformational processes, such as individualized influence behavior, may lead to an increase in organizational commitment. The ability of a leader to encourage his or her followers to focus more on achieving the desired results rather than on receiving rewards and punishments may boost their self-confidence in accomplishing these objectives. Lee and Koh (2001) contend that empowerment has two components: “supervisor behavior” (also known as behavioral empowerment, that is, a supervisor who empowers his/her subordinates) and “psychological state of a subordinate” (also known as psychological empowerment, that is as a result of his/her supervisor’s empowering). Behavioral empowerment is built on a relational approach that emphasizes power delegation and decision-making authority (Ismail et al., 2011). Empowerment, according to this viewpoint, is based on the movement of power down an organization’s hierarchy. This empowerment is divided into three parts: work method (degree of discretion), work scheduling (amount of control), and work criteria (degree of choice or modify). When behavioral empowerment is done correctly, it can create a situation and/or environment in which followers have the tools and/or freedom to decide how their job should be done (Ismail et al., 2011).
In addition, empowerment is viewed as a proactive and strategic management practice that exists in an organization that promotes high commitment HR practices in a transformational leadership model. For example, leaders’ ability to delegate the power and responsibility of controlling, making, and sharing decisions to their followers will encourage them to use their intellectual abilities and full potential to overcome job obstacles, understand the targeted goals, and support the organizational interests. As a result, it may result in the achievement of organizational strategy and goals (Ismail et al., 2011).
This research study will determine which type of leadership style, particularly transactional, transformational and servant leadership styles, and organizational commitment is associated with certain demographics of employees, namely age group, gender, education, job type, service years, and salary in the Bahamian private sector. Also, the research will ascertain whether managers’ leadership style needs to improve. The term “leadership style” refers to a leader’s behavior and attitude toward governance and supervision in a company. These styles have an impact on everyone, from top management to new entrants. Better leadership styles are becoming increasingly important in all organizations. Different situations necessitate distinct leadership styles. The style should be one that most effectively meets the team’s objectives while also balancing the interests of its followers and team members. Several authors have defined “leadership in their styles and understanding, in a variety of ways, communication of a leader does play a key role as matters arising are to be transmitted to followers through communication and this is how leaders win the confidence and trust of their followers, paving the way for instilling the firm’s vision” (Aun et al., 2019). Although “some leaders are aware of their exact impact on followers, individual characteristics and differences among followers create differentiation” in how the leader’s influence is received (Aun et al., 2019).
Problem
In the Bahamian private sector, some employees are not committed to their organization due to lack of empowerment and poor leadership style of some managers. Employees want to feel respected and appreciated at work and when this does not occur, they sometimes leave the organization. Moreover, it was stated that organizational leaders in some parts of the world have been accused of using top-down, command-and-control leadership styles to lead their subordinates, which frequently results in unfavorable emotions from their subordinates (workers) and impedes cordiality between both sides. Workers would be demotivated, and employees’ commitment to the company would be eroded, among other things, as a result of these leadership styles (Abasilim et al., 2018). According to Allen and Meyer’s findings, committed employees are the least likely to leave the organization. Less committed employees tend to leave their organizations, or are emotionally or mentally withdrawn from organizations if they have no choice but to stay. High turnover has a direct impact on an organization’s operational performance. Organizations must find other people to fill the position, which incurs additional financial costs, the risk of losing key skills, knowledge, and experience, and other negative consequences (Long et al., 2016). A growing number of studies are attempting to pinpoint the causes of organizational engagement. It is widely acknowledged that leaders have a significant impact on the development and maintenance of corporate culture. According to the leadership literature, the ability to recognize and function within a society is a prerequisite for successful leadership (Lyndon & Rawat, 2015). As a result, more research is needed to investigate the relationship between leadership style, empowerment, and employee organizational commitment, and the characteristics of their employees. Employers must train and encourage managers to adopt a good leadership style when managing their employees in order to reduce low performance, high turnover rates and maximize organizational performance.
Purpose
The purpose of this research paper is to determine by way of a field study, which management leadership style (transactional, transformational and servant) fosters empowerment, and causes an employee to remain committed to an organization.
Research Hypotheses
To determine an association between leadership style, empowerment and organizational commitment with employee characteristics in the Bahamian private sector, a survey of employee views and attitudes toward three leadership styles (transactional, transformational and servant) are required. The following hypotheses are listed below:
- Null Hypothesis: In the Bahamian private sector a manager’s leadership style and organizational commitment is not associated with an employee’s age, gender, education level, job type, service years, and salary.
- Alternative Hypothesis: A manager’s leadership style and organizational commitment in the Bahamian private sector is associated with an employee’s age, gender, education level, job type, service years and salary.
- Null Hypothesis: In the Bahamas’ private sector, managers’ leadership styles need to improve.
- Alternative Hypothesis: In the Bahamian private sector, managers’ leadership styles do not need to improve.
- Null Hypothesis: In the Bahamian private sector, there is a statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals, and getting empowered by a manager who pushes employees to take advantage of extra training programs offered by the organization; that is, empowerment by a manager is a factor in servant leadership.
- Alternative Hypothesis: In the Bahamian private sector, there is no association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals, and getting empowered by a manager who pushes employees to take advantage of extra training programs offered by the organization; that is, empowerment by a manager is a factor in servant leadership.
Limitations
Due to restricted exposure, the researcher’s ability acts as a constraint. Research progress could be hampered by a lack of resources. The study could be halted if there is a power outage or an interruption in the internet connection. Because of the high degree of inflation in the Bahamas, funding for research such as internet service, mobile minutes, and travel expenses may be difficult to come by. The funds from the researcher’s salary will be used to carry out the research. The fact that the study was only conducted in Nassau due to insufficient funds to travel to other Bahamian family islands is a limitation. Furthermore, the Bahamas government’s social distancing restrictions imposed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic also result in limitations, as most people are afraid to meet face to face to answer a questionnaire for fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus. Because only so much research can be done in three months, the number of weeks allotted for the spring 2022 semester resulted in research limitations.
Theoretical Framework
Independent Variable
Leadership style: Tactics in which a manager uses to interact with and direct subordinates in achieving business goals. For example, a manager that utilizes a transactional leadership style will award high performing employees in the company and chastise and punish low performing ones. Whereas a supervisor who adopts a transformational leadership style will spend their shift teaching and coaching staff on how to increase sales and earn the company a larger profit. A manager that uses a servant leadership style will encourage employees to solve important and difficult business decisions on their own.
Dependent Variables
Organizational commitment: The emotional attachment employees have to their organization. When employees perceive that their manager and company support their personal career goals and encourages them to achieve it; and by organizations offering employee reward incentives, companies are very likely to retain their staff.
Empowerment: Motivation given by mangers to encourage employees to come to work and do their jobs. A form of empowerment is a manger sharing business decision making responsibility with employees by seeking their input and acting on some of their suggestions.
Theory
Empowerment and organizational commitment depend on leadership style. If managers in the Bahamian private sector empower employees, have a great leadership style (transactional, transformational and servant) and treats employees with dignity and respect they will be more inclined to remain loyal and working at an organization.
Theoretical framework for the relationship between leadership style, empowerment and organizational commitment in the Bahamian private sector study.
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine whether relationships exist between: leadership style, empowerment, and organizational commitment, and demographic variables like age group, gender, education level, job type, service years to the organization, and salary. Also, this study was conducted to find out if managers’ leadership styles need to improve. To examine the study outcomes, a qualitative and a quantitative approach were applied. This research took around two months to complete. From the survey conducted the responses from three statements (numbers 15, 16, and 17) were to determine the type of leadership and organizational commitment. “I am loyal to my organization because my supervisor is interested in making sure I reach my career goals,” corresponded to Servant Leadership. “I am glad I chose to work for this organization because my manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff; therefore, I will remain committed to my company,” corresponded to Transformational Leadership. “My manager works out agreements with me so I will remain committed to my organization,” corresponded to Transactional Leadership. The responses to each were strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree. Each of these types of leaderships was cross tabulated with the demographics age group, gender, education level, job type, service years, and annual salary range. The Likelihood Ratio Test was then applied to determine if relationships existed or not among the variables. This approach was qualitative. Next, using question 30 from the survey, “On a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate your manager’s leadership style, with a scale of 10 being excellent and 1 being extremely poor?” a one sample t-test was applied using the responses to determine if managers’ leadership styles in the private sector in The Bahamas need to improve (average rating of the population at most 5). This approach was quantitative.
Population
The target population for this study are entry level employees and middle managers aged 18 and over that are employed part-time or full-time at seven large companies located at the Mall at Marathon, Nassau, Bahamas; since the mall is a located in a centrally located and commercialized area. Currently there are no statistics posted by the Department of Statistics in The Bahamas regarding my research topic.
Sampling
The sample will represent employees and middle managers age 18 employed at seven companies located at the Mall at Marathon, Nassau Bahamas. The Likelihood Ratio Test was chosen to determine whether relationships exist between leadership style and organizational commitment, and the demographics of the employees since the chi-square test of association requires all the expected frequencies to be at least five (5) due to have reliable results. When running the software, some of the expected frequencies were less than five, and thus, the chi-square test of association would not have been the best choice. From a simulation study conducted by Pervin and Rahman (2020), a minimum sample of 200 is recommended when using the Likelihood Ratio Test. Thus, a sample size of 200 was chosen.
Instrument
A 30-item questionnaire based on the many features described in the literature study was designed to test the framework model. The factors included in the study were culled from the existing literature. There were 12 questions about leadership, two (2) questions on empowerment, five (5) questions on organizational commitment and eight (8) questions about respondent demographics and three (3) questions requesting additional information. The prepared questionnaire ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree by using 5point Likert scale. On the other hand, for the demographics a nominal scale was used to capture gender, age, monthly income, highest qualification, and year of services. A ratio scale was used to collect data on the magnitude and proportion of the differences in the variables. Additionally, a graphic rating scale was used to help respondents indicate their answers to certain questions by placing a score between 1-10 with 1, being very poor and 10, being excellent in the correct spot on the survey line. Finally, an itemized rating scale. With an itemized rating scale, the respondent states the appropriate number on the side of each item, or circles the relevant number against each item, for example, (1) Very likely, (2) Likely, (3) Neither Likely Nor Unlikely, (4) Unlikely and (5) Very Likely. After that, the responses to the items are added together (Sekaran &Bougie, 2013). This survey will be conducted in English, which is the main language spoken within The Bahamas and the completed data collection is strictly confidential.
Data Collection
The data was collected by issuing 200 self-administered structured surveys on “The leadership style and organizational commitment in The Bahamian private sector” to employees and middle managers age 18 and over. Respondents will be targeted from seven companies located at the Mall at Marathon, Nassau, Bahamas. Managers of the seven companies selected to participate in the survey will be notified in advance via letter. Likewise, each respondent will be provided with a letter, which will ask for their participation and inform them about the study to be conducted. The survey participants will remain anonymous.
Data Analysis and Results
Descriptive Statistics: Rating Score
Table 1 shows some descriptive statistics for the rating score given by the participants surveyed about their manager’s leadership style. The average rating score was about 6, which represents an average leadership style. The lower quartile of the rating score was 5, which represents a fair leadership style. The median of the rating scores was 7, which represents an above average leadership style. The upper quartile of the rating score was 8, which represents a good leadership style. The mode of the rating scores was 8 as well. The variance and standard deviation of the rating scores were about 4.6 and 2.1, respectively. The range of the rating scores was 9 and the interquartile range was 3.
One-Sample T: Rating Score
Test of μ ≤ 5 vs μ > 5
Table 2 shows a one-sample t-test to test the null hypothesis that managers’ leadership style in The Bahamian private sector needs improvement (H0: μ ≤ 5, average leadership style rating is at most 5) versus the alternative hypothesis that managers’ leadership style in The Bahamian private does not need improvement (Ha: μ > 5, average leadership style rating is more than 5). The test statistic is t = 7.67 with a p-value < 0.0005. Selecting a level of significance, μ = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis since the p-value < μ.
Table 3
Table 3 shows the distribution of the variables servant leadership and age group, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, servant leadership and age group versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, servant leadership and age group. We can see here that LR(20) = 19.9, p-value = 0.464 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals and age group; that is, age group is not a factor in servant leadership.
Table 4
Table 4 shows the distribution of the variables servant leadership and gender, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, servant leadership and gender versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, servant leadership and gender. We can see here that LR(4) = 1.538, p-value = 0.820 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals and gender; that is, an employee’s gender is not a factor in servant leadership.
Table 5
Table 5 shows the distribution of the variables servant leadership and education level, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, servant leadership and education level versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, servant leadership and education level. We can see here that LR(16) = 27.368, p-value = 0.038 < 0.05. This tells us that there is a statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals and education level; that is, an employee’s education level is a factor in servant leadership.
Servant Leadership and Job Type
LR(48) = 57.113, p-value = 0.173
Table 6
Table 6 shows the distribution of the variables servant leadership and job type, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, servant leadership and job type versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, servant leadership and job type. We can see here that LR(48) = 57.113, p-value = 0.173 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals and job type; that is, an employee’s job type is not a factor in servant leadership.
Table 7
Table 7 shows the distribution of the variables servant leadership and years on the job, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, servant leadership and years on the job versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, servant leadership and years on the job. We can see here that LR(8) = 12.26, p-value = 0.140 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals and years on the job; that is, an employee’s service years is not a factor in servant leadership.
Table 8
Table 8 shows the distribution of the variables servant leadership and salary and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, servant leadership and salary versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, servant leadership and salary. We can see here that LR(12) = 19.858, p-value = 0.070 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals and salary; that is, an employee’s salary is not a factor in servant leadership.
Table 9
Table 9 shows the distribution of the variables transformational leadership and age group and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transformational leadership and age group versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transformational leadership and age group. We can see here that LR(20) = 32.643, p-value = 0.037 < 0.05. This tells us that there is a statistically significant association between being glad to have chosen to work for an organization because the manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff, and age group; that is, an employee’s age group is a factor in transformational leadership.
Table 10
Table 10 shows the distribution of the variables transformational leadership and gender and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transformational leadership and gender versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transformational leadership and gender. We can see here that LR(4) = 1.05, p-value = 0.902 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being glad to have chosen to work for an organization because the manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff, and gender; that is, an employee’s gender is not a factor in transformational leadership.
Table 11
Table 11 shows the distribution of the variables transformational leadership and education level and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transformational leadership and education level versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transformational leadership and education level. We can see here that LR(16) = 17.195, p-value = 0.373 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being glad to have chosen to work for an organization because the manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff, and education level; that is, an employee’s education level is not a factor in transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership and Job Type
LR(48) = 60.858, p-value = 0.101
Table 12
Table 12 shows the distribution of the variables transformational leadership and job type, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transformational leadership and job type versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transformational leadership and job type. We can see here that LR(48) = 60.858, p-value = 0.101 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being glad to have chosen to work for an organization because the manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff, and job type; that is, an employee’s job type is not a factor in transformational leadership.
Table 13
Table 13 shows the distribution of the variables transformational leadership and years on the job, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transformational leadership and years on the job versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transformational leadership and years on the job. We can see here that LR(8) = 8.652, p-value = 0.373 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being glad to have chosen to work for an organization because the manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff, and years on the job; that is, the number of years of an employee on the job is not a factor in transformational leadership.
Table 14
Table 14 shows the distribution of the variables transformational leadership and salary, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transformational leadership and salary versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transformational leadership and salary. We can see here that LR(12) = 12.078, p-value = 0.439 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between being glad to have chosen to work for an organization because the manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff, and salary; that is, an employee’s salary is not a factor in transformational leadership.
Table 15
Table 15 shows the distribution of the variables transactional leadership and age group, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transactional leadership and age group versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transactional leadership and age group. We can see here that LR(20) = 26.067, p-value = 0.164 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between having a manager who works out agreements with them, and age group; that is, an employee’s age group is not a factor in transactional leadership.
Table 16
Table 16 shows the distribution of the variables transactional leadership and gender, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transactional leadership and gender versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transactional leadership and gender. We can see here that LR(4) = 3.399, p-value = 0.493 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between having a manager who works out agreements with them, and gender; that is, an employee’s gender is not a factor in transactional leadership.
Table 17
Table 17 shows the distribution of the variables transactional leadership and education level, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transactional leadership and education level versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transactional leadership and education level. We can see here that LR(16) = 24.539, p-value = 0.078 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between having a manager who works out agreements with them, and education level; that is, an employee’s education level is not a factor in transactional leadership.
Transactional Leadership and Job Type
LR(48) = 95.675, p-value < 0.0005
Table 18
Table 18 shows the distribution of the variables transactional leadership and job type, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transactional leadership and job type versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transactional leadership and job type. We can see here that LR(48) = 95.675, p-value < 0.0005. This tells us that there is a statistically significant association between having a manager who works out agreements with them, and job type; that is, an employee’s job type is a factor in transactional leadership
Table 19
Table 19 shows the distribution of the variables transactional leadership and years on the job, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transactional leadership and years on the job versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transactional leadership and years on the job. We can see here that LR(8) = 10.914, p-value = 0.207 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between having a manager who works out agreements with them, and number of years on the job; that is, an employee’s service years is not a factor in transactional leadership.
Table 20
Table 20 shows the distribution of the variables transactional leadership and salary, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transactional leadership and salary versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transactional leadership and salary. We can see here that LR(12) = 19.263, p-value = 0.082 > 0.05. This tells us that there is no statistically significant association between having a manager who works out agreements with them, and the salary of an employee; that is, an employee’s salary is not a factor in transactional leadership.
Table 21
Table 21 shows the distribution of the variables servant leadership and empowerment, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, servant leadership and empowerment versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, servant leadership and empowerment. We can see here that LR(20) = 40.344,
p-value = 0.005 < 0.05. This tells us that there is a statistically significant association between being loyal to an organization because one’s supervisor is interested in making sure they reach their career goals, and getting empowered by a manager who pushes employees to take advantage of extra training programs offered by the organization; that is, empowerment by a manager is a factor in servant leadership.
Table 22
Table 22 shows the distribution of the variables transformational leadership and empowerment, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables, transformational leadership and empowerment versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transformational leadership and empowerment. We can see here that LR(20) = 36.633, p-value = 0.013 < 0.05. This tells us that there is a statistically significant association between being glad to have chosen to work for an organization because the manager spends time teaching and coaching the staff, and getting empowered by a manager who pushes employees to take advantage of extra training programs offered by the organization; that is, empowerment by a manager is a factor in transformational leadership.
Table 23
Table 23 shows the distribution of the variables transactional leadership and empowerment, and the likelihood ratio test to test the null hypothesis of no association between the variables transactional leadership and empowerment versus the alternative hypothesis of significant association between the variables, transactional leadership and empowerment. We can see here that LR(20) = 46.785, p-value < 0.001 < 0.05. This tells us that there is a statistically significant association between having a manager who works out agreements with them, and getting empowered by a manager who pushes employees to take advantage of extra training programs offered by the organization; that is, empowerment by a manager is a factor in transactional leadership.
z-Test for Two Proportions for those Empowered
Table 24
Table 24 shows the data for a two-sample z-test for proportions. The test was used to test the null hypothesis that among those who felt empowered by their manager to complete work tasks when they received positive words of encouragement from their manager, the proportion of those being committed to the work organization is no more than the proportion of those who are not committed to the organization versus the alternative hypothesis that among those who felt empowered by their manager to complete work tasks when they received positive words of encouragement from their manager, the proportion of those being committed to the work organization is more than the proportion of those who are not committed to the organization. The z-test statistics and p-values for servant leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership are z = – 2.16, p-value = 0.0154 < 0.05; z = – 1.42, p-value = 0.0778 > 0.05; z = – 1.39,
p-value = 0.0823 > 0.05, respectively. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis for servant leadership and fail to reject the null hypothesis for transformational and transactional leaderships. Therefore, when employees are empowered by their managers, they are more committed to servant leadership.
Discussion
Based on the study, servant leadership and organizational commitment were not related to age group, gender, job type, service years, and annual salary. However, it was found that servant leadership and organizational commitment was related to the education level of the employees. This is not surprising since people with higher qualifications tend to be more career oriented. Thus, more educated people would tend not to put up with a poor servant leader and seek other employment.
Transformational leadership and organizational commitment were not related to gender, education level, job type, service years, and annual salary. However, it was found that transformational leadership and organizational commitment were related to the age group of the employees. Young adults tend to have less experience and would need more training. If they are not taught the necessary job skills, they may get frustrated on the job because they see the job as pointless if they cannot perform their duties properly. Younger people feel as though they have more time in life and tend to have more goals in life. They are not as complacent as older individuals and would change employment quicker.
Transactional leadership and organizational commitment were not related to age group, gender, education level, service years, and annual salary. However, it was found that transactional leadership and organizational commitment were related to the job type of the employees. Before people apply for a job, they have expectations. If they are not pleased with what an organization is offering, then most likely, those employees are going to leave and find other employment.
It was found that the mean managers’ leadership style in the private sector in The Bahamas was average with an above average median leadership style. From the results and one sample t-test hypothesis testing, no improvement was necessary, overall, on the leadership style of managers in the private sector in The Bahamas. However, this testing was based on rating scores with a standard deviation rating score of about 2.1.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when it came to all three types of leadership, transactional, transformational and servant, being empowered by a supervisor to take advantage of extra training programs afforded by the work organization was associated. However, among those who felt empowered by their manager to complete work tasks when they received positive words of encouragement, the employees were more committed to servant leadership style and not a transactional or transformational leadership style.
Recommendations For Future Research
It is recommended that this research be extended to include government sector employees located in The Bahamas in terms of understanding the relationship between Leadership Style, Empowerment and Organizational Commitment and to include other variables such as job satisfaction to gain an understanding of why government employees are not pleased with their jobs and but have to remain committed to their organization due to personal reasons. Broadcast of this study can be aired on radio, television and Meta to inform all government employees of the survey and to encourage them to participate. The study can be done online and sent to civil servants’ government email to save time and money travelling, to all inhabited islands of The Bahamas. From this new research the Government of The Bahamas will discover what needs to be improved in various Government ministries throughout The Bahamas and fix the problem. Hopefully, government employees will feel relieved as a result of this business research.
References
Abasilim, U. D., Gberevbie, D. E., & Osibanjo, A. (2018). Canonical Analysis of Perceived Leadership Styles and Employees’ Commitment in Nigeria. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance, 317–322.
Ahmad, A., Bibi, P., & Majid, A. H. A. (2016). Co-worker Support as Moderator on the
Relationship between Compensation and Transactional Leadership in Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 695–709.
Asgari, A., Mezginejad, S., & Taherpour, F. (2020). The Role of Leadership Styles in
Organizational Citizenship Behavior through the Mediation of Perceived organizational Support and Job satisfaction. Innovar: Revista De Ciencias Administrativas Y Sociales, 30(75), 87-98. Web.
Aun, I. I., Olota, O. O., Ajayi, O., & Sanusi, S. I. (2019). Effect of Leadership Styles on
Employees’ Performance: A Study of Seven-Up Plc. Global Management Review, 13(1), 9–23. Web.
Boddy, C. (2017). Psychopathic Leadership A Case Study of a Corporate Psychopath CEO. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 141-156.
Byza, O. A. U., Dörr, S. L., Schuh, S. C., & Maier, G. W. (2019). When Leaders and Followers Match: The Impact of Objective Value Congruence, Value Extremity, and Empowerment on Employee Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 1097–1112. Web.
Choi Sang Long, Lim Zhi Yong, & Tan Wee Chuen. (2016). Analysis of the Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 3(10), 572–598.
Durgapal, B. P. (2015). Organizational Commitment of Teachers in Higher Education with Special Reference to Kumaun University. CLEAR International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 6(10), 61–65.
Han, S., Seo, G., Li, J., & Yoon, S. W. (2016). The mediating effect of organizational commitment and employee empowerment: how transformational leadership impacts employee knowledge sharing intention. Human Resource Development International, 19(2), 98–115. Web.
Ismail, A., Mohamed, H. A.-B., Sulaiman, A. Z., Mohamad, M. H., & Yusuf, M. H. (2011). An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership, Empowerment and Organizational Commitment. Business & Economics Research Journal, 2(1), 89–106.
Jones, K. A. (2021). The Role of Leadership in Bahamian Special Economic Zones. International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 27(1), 19–36. Web.
Kiker, D. S., Scully Callahan, J., & Kiker, M. B. (2019). Exploring the Boundaries of Servant Leadership: A Meta-Analysis of the Main and Moderating Effects of Servant Leadership on Behavioral and Affective Outcomes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 31(2), 172–197.
Kim, S., & Shin, M. (2019). Transformational leadership behaviors, the empowering process, and organizational commitment: investigating the moderating role of organizational structure in Korea. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(2), 251– 275. Web.
Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and Voice and Antisocial Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 99–115. Web.
Lyndon, S., & Rawat, P. (2015). Effect of Leadership on Organizational Commitment. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(1), 97-108. Web.
Meixner, T., & Pospisil, R. (2021). Personality Matters: Prediction of Organizational Commitment Using Leadership and Personality. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 10(3), 248–265.
Mufti, M., Xiaobao, P., Shah, S. J., Sarwar, A., & Zhenqing, Y. (2020). Influence of leadership style on job satisfaction of NGO employee: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891), 20(1), 1–11. Web.
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How Servant Leadership Influences Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of LMX, Empowerment, and Proactive Personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49-62. Web.
Pervin, M.M., & Rahman, M.S. (2020). Minimum Sample Sizes for Likelihood Ratio Tests: Simulation Study. Web.
Pradhan, S., & Pradhan, R. K. (2015). An Empirical Investigation of Relationship among
Transformational Leadership, Affective Organizational Commitment and Contextual Performance. Vision (09722629), 19(3), 227–235. Web.
Rehman, S., Haseeb Ur Rahman, Zahid, M., & Asif, M. (2018). Leadership Styles, Organizational Culture and Employees’ Productivity: Fresh Evidence from Private Banks of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 1–15.
Sekaran, U., &Bourgie, R. (2013). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (Sixth ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.