Influence Of Organizational Culture and Leadership On Nonprofit

Influence Of Organizational Culture and

Leadership On Nonprofit

Chapter 1: Introduction

In the United States, organizations are categorized by the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) as nonprofit service agents if they provide certain

services to the public (IRS, 2017). There are approximately 33,000 human

services nonprofit organizations that maintain contracts with the federal

government to provide services to individuals and families in need (Boris, de

Leon, Roeger, & Nikolva, 2010). The U.S. government funds these

nonprofit organizations to provide services to the public. Nonprofit

organizations’ funding and policies are often determined by the performance

of the given nonprofit organizations in providing public services (Fyffe,

2015).

The performance of nonprofit organizations is subject to debate;

unlike for-profit organizations, nonprofit organizations’ success is not based

on revenue created or the amount of assets amassed (Prentice, 2015). The

provision of public services is hard to quantify, as services cannot be

quantified in most cases. Nonprofit organizations are driven by the goal of

meeting the needs of the public when market mechanisms for forprofit

organizations fail.

The role of culture and leadership in influencing the commitment of

staff members in nonprofit organizations is a contentious issue and is subject

to debate. The performance of nonprofit organizations is a subject of

funding, goodwill, and leadership. This study examined the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’

commitment in an organization serving children and families.

Organizational culture can be defined as the sum of beliefs, values, and the

defining code of conduct that shape an organization’s way of doing things

(Martin, 2014). An organization’s culture, coupled with the leadership style

at any given time, influences the commitment of employees (Martin, 2014).

The commitment of employees is subject to various factors; however,

there is a lack of literature regarding how organizational culture and

leadership influences the performance of staff in nonprofit organizations.

Values, beliefs, and codes of conduct may compel employees to embrace the

professionalism, competence, and accountability that allow organizations

and individual employees to perform in certain ways. In cases where there

is a disconnect between the professional code of conduct, the organization’s

culture, and leadership, the staff would not feel obligated to embrace

competence and accountability. Nonprofit organizations are unique in the

manner in which their leaders view and measure performance. Thus, there is

a need to study the influence of organizational culture and leadership styles

on the commitment of staff members in nonprofit organizations. A study on

the influence of culture and leadership on the commitment of staff members

in nonprofit organizations has great public policy and administration

implications across various sectors.

Background of the Study

Leadership in its broadest definition refers to the process in which a

given party influences the activities of another individual or a group of

individuals into attaining certain set goals (Northouse, 2014). The

leadership of any given organization is mandated with directing and

influencing the members of the organization towards the attainment of the

set organizational goals (Shuck & Herd, 2012). The leadership of any given

institution or organization is also mandated with the development of policy

and the administrative systems of the organization. There is a need for

policy makers to make informed decisions regarding staff development,

motivation, and rewards based on the underlying system of values. The

leadership system of any given organization is responsible for the

performance of staff and the overall organization (McCall, 2010). Over the

years, challenges of accountability, transparency, and service delivery have

led to the transformation of nonprofit organizations. The pace and extent of

changes in nonprofit organizations is ever-increasing, thus placing greater

demands on organizational leaders to embrace knowledge, sophistication,

and skill in coming up with policy and administrative decisions on

management and staff commitment (Renz, 2010). Leadership skills include

coaching, pacesetting, commanding, affiliating, and participating in

organizational activities alongside other given stakeholders (Springer, 2013).

Leadership skills go a long way in influencing the commitment of

staff in any given organization (Springer, 2013). There are various

leadership styles that contribute to improving productivity, performance, and

the capacity to overcome challenges encountered in organizations. The

integration of the various styles of leadership allows the leader to connect

the performance of the organization with its purpose and expectations.

Leadership has both a human component and the traditional management

role (Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). The human component of leadership

involves the leader’s skills of communication and his or her ability to

encourage and motivate, while the traditional management component

consists of organizational and staff development, leadership practice and

theory, time management, and effective planning (Larsson & Vinberg,

2010).

To extract the best performance from followers, leaders must exhibit

behavioral characteristics that reflect optimism, thereby creating a positive,

less hostile work environment, practical measures that build on the

foundations of the organization, and provide an open organizational

framework to enhance the internal and external environment of the business.

Furthermore, leaders must aim for a highly functioning organization in

which tasks are delegated and workers are allowed to decide the most

efficient way to perform those tasks (Larsson & Vinberg, 2010).

A popular style of leadership that came to prominence in the late

1990s is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders motivate and

encourage change in the individuals they manage (Ghasabeh, Soosay, &

Reaiche, 2015). Regardless of style or characteristics, leaders must

demonstrate effective leadership. Effective leadership involves having the

expertise to direct, persuade, and inspire staff and others to work hard to

achieve a common goal of the organization (Yukl, 2012). Northouse (2010)

perceived managers—second-line leadership—as having the skill to

understand and apply the leadership behaviors necessary to boost employee

engagement and satisfy stakeholders of the organization. Strong leadership

development is essential to organization culture and performance (DeRue &

Ashford, 2010).

Culture is defined as the attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and perceptions

of individuals in their workplace (Birukou, Blanzieri, Giorgini, &

Giunchiglia, 2013). The most prominent component of culture in an

organization is the unconscious, implicit, and informal environment.

Culture refers to the standards, understanding, and consistency of a group or

organizational setting. When the culture of an organization is confident and

secure, employees of the group or company work harder and feels good

about themselves and their jobs (Muscalu, 2014).

Previous studies on culture have focused on effecting change,

implying that an efficient organization is a setting in which culture motivates

staff to carry out continuous change through improvement and strong

performance. Change in the organization can make individual problem

solvers more proactive in their job roles. Leaders should understand the

influence and importance of culture in the organization. The culture of an

organization is recognized as a crucial element to improve the leadership and

development of leaders in the organization (Muscalu, 2014).

Research on organizational effectiveness has demonstrated that

organizational culture is correlated with staff performance (Altaf, 2011).

Altaf (2011), a researcher of organizational culture, found that culture within

the organization had more influence on staff commitment than the mission

or vision of the organization. Altaf’s research found that leaders who

inspired, were a part of an efficient team, and had the support of their

colleagues, subordinates, and upper management possessed a sense of value

and achieved greater success in their organization than leaders who lacked

these supports. This was because leaders and their followers had a common

belief in the desire to strive, produce, and promote through collective action

to achieve high levels of performance progress.

Organizations with a culture that demonstrates positive norms, values,

beliefs, and professionalism to empower a strong organizational mission

tend to promote and develop their leaders (Altaf, 2011). Without strong

leaders and the support of a positive organizational culture, progress will be

a challenge for the organization and its members (Muscalu, 2014). Leaders

must familiarize themselves with the culture of their organization and ensure

there is a strong “fit” between themselves and the organization, or the

performance of the organization will likely suffer. Culture is important for

individuals who want to become leaders (Neaugu & Nucula, 2012).

A leader’s leadership style can improve and inspire a positive

organizational culture. Leaders derive their leadership style from a variety

of traditional approaches and implement them in their daily role. When

leaders demonstrate commitment, positivity, persuasiveness, effectiveness,

and receptiveness, they can improve the positive culture in an organization

(Valentine, 2011).

Self-confident leaders convey high expectations for staff by directing

and emphasizing the importance of staff performance for efficient

organizational performance. Leaders must be outstanding role models and

continually strive to incorporate excellence to build organizational success.

Collaboration is the key to successfully changing the culture of an

organization while retaining successful staff. A staff development program

that promotes superior staff performance can facilitate change in

organizational culture, reinforced by leadership qualities that modify or

improve the organizational culture (Valentine, 2011).

For organizations to succeed, leaders must instill a culture that

promotes support, productivity, commitment, learning, and growth. To

maintain a high-performing culture, leaders must recognize and cultivate

traditions, values, and beliefs that will strengthen the positive organizational

culture. There is a need for continued study of effective leadership traits so

that leaders can gain a better understanding of how to influence the culture

in their organization and enhance staff commitment. Organizational culture

has been linked to staff commitment; however, the mechanisms by which

leaders manage and modify organizational culture are unclear (Valentine,

2011). Policy and the administrative issues of any given organization are

based on solid knowledge. The commitment of staff members in the case of

nonprofit organizations has a great bearing in organizational policy making.

The influence of organizational culture and leadership styles on the

commitment of the staff members of nonprofit organization is implied.

However, the manner in which the influence was realized and the

implications of the staff commitment to policy and administration is a

dilemma in need of extensive research.

Problem Statement

Previous research has mainly concentrated on the influence of

organizational culture on leadership or in the workplace or on leadership and

culture in nonprofit organizations. There was clearly a research gap on

which this study was intended to focus: the influence of organizational

culture on nonprofit organizations. Hence, there was a lack of research

regarding the influence of organizational culture and leadership styles on

staff members’ commitment in a nonprofit organization serving children and

families.

Nonprofit organizations rely on the commitment of their employees to

realize their mission, vision, and goals. Policy and administration, with

regard to employee motivation, reward, recruitment, and career

development, as well as the funding of various projects and expansion

programs, greatly depend on the performance of the organization at a given

time. In the United States, the government relies on the nonprofit sector to

help the neediest of people with essential social, physical, and economic

human services. There are approximately 33,000 human services nonprofit

organizations registered in the United States that are under federal contract

to provide services to individuals and families in need (Boris et al., 2010). It

is important for these nonprofits to invest wisely in staff members that are

committed to their work. Although employees are the best resource

available to nonprofits, retaining good employees is a challenge (Allen,

Bryan, & Vardaman, 2010).

Poor levels of commitment and high staff turnover rates have adverse

impacts on the performance of any given organization. Leadership and the

organizational culture set the tone for employee discipline and the level of

output, as well as commitment to the course of the organization. High

turnover is costly in terms of economics, organizational effectiveness, and

social consequences for children and families receiving services from these

human services organizations. The leadership style and employee

commitment are factors in organizational culture that have an impact on

turnover and commitment. When recognition, reward, and trust—key

factors of organizational culture—are lacking, employees start to lose

confidence and thus, the satisfaction and commitment level can decrease,

leading to a weak and unproductive work environment (Allen et al., 2010).

Because previous leadership and performance theories have largely

focused on for-profit organizations, an in-depth analysis of the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles with regard to staff commitment

in nonprofit organizations helped fill the knowledge gap in terms of

nonprofits. The management of public organizations calls for utmost

consideration when making decisions and policies that affect the current and

future status of the given organization. The establishment of the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on the commitment of staff in

nonprofit organizations is detrimental to the administration and policy

making of nonprofit organizations’ stakeholders. Staff members are

mandated with the actual implementation of organization’s strategies.

Factors affecting staff commitment affect the overall organization.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment

in an organization serving children and families. The objectives of the

research study were to determine the degree to which organizational

culture influenced leadership styles, the degree to which organizational

culture influenced staff members’ commitment, the characteristics of

organizational culture and leadership styles that had the greatest influence

on staff members’ commitment, the degree to which direct leadership

styles influenced staff members’ commitment, and the role of reward and

recognition on staff members’ commitment.

This research examined the influence of organizational culture and

leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’ commitment in an

organization serving children and families. Identifying the variables

(organizational culture, leadership, and staff members’ commitment) was

necessary for designing the research questions because the questions

represented the objective of the study. These variables were chosen based

on the belief that leaders had an influence on staff members’ performance

because they were responsible for encouraging, motivating, and ensuring job

satisfaction. Organizational culture and leadership influenced staff

members’ commitment. Organizational culture, on the other hand, outlined

the organization’s code of conduct, thus affecting staff members’

commitment. Therefore, leadership and culture affected staff commitment,

which in turn affected administration and policy making in nonprofit

organizations, which are public entities (Martin, 2014).

Research Method and Design

I applied a quantitative method to perform this study, using a

correlational research design. The correlational design was useful for

determining whether there was a relationship between the dependent and

independent variables. The independent variable in the study was leadership

styles, and the dependent variable was the level of staff members’

commitment to the nonprofit organization. The target population consisted

of full-time staff members who worked for Little Sisters of Assumption

Family Health Service, a nonprofit organization serving children and

families located in New York City. The eligibility requirements to

participate in this study were that the participants had to be staff of the

nonprofit organization not involved in a management role or influential

position.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The researcher further sought to identify the connection between

leadership and nonprofit staff member’s commitment. This research was

based on the following questions and the related hypotheses:

RQ1: To what extent, if any, did staff members’ perceptions of

leadership styles (transformational and laissez-faire) influence the level of

commitment to the nonprofit organization by its staff members?

H01: The staff members’ perceptions of leadership styles (transformational

and laissez-faire) had no effect on their commitment to the nonprofit

organization.

Ha1: The staff members’ perceptions of leadership styles

(transformational and laissez-faire) had an effect on their

commitment to the nonprofit organization.

RQ2: What extent, if any, did staff members’ perceptions of the

organizational culture influence their level of commitment to the

organizational mission?

H02: The staff members’ perceptions of organizational culture had

no effect on their level of commitment to the organizational

mission.

Ha2: The staff members’ perceptions of organizational culture had an

effect on their level of commitment to the organizational mission.

Independent and Dependent Variables

The independent variable for this research was leadership styles,

measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The dependent

variable was the staff members’ commitment. The variables measured in

this case explored the positive aspect of hierarchical organizational culture, a

culture based on rules and procedures to guide employees on what to do.

The leadership style—that is team, strategic, democratic, or cross-cultural—

had been assumed to have no association with the staff members’

commitment. The dependent and independent variables clearly showed the

association between leadership styles and the commitment of the staff to the

nonprofit organization.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of transformational leadership is useful to

organizational leaders because they use this style of leadership to create a

positive environment. Transformational leaders have strong connections to

their followers. These leaders motivate followers to build teams and become

leaders themselves (Ghasabeh et al., 2015).

Transformational leadership is a leadership approach in which

connections among interested individuals are organized around a collective

purpose in a way that motivates, transforms, and supports the development

of leadership in others (Simola, Barling, & Turner, 2012). According to the

theory of transformational leadership, transformational leaders help

employees to go beyond probable achievement and increase their job

satisfaction, which leads to greater commitment to the organization (Pradhan

& Pradhan, 2016). Transformational leaders try to change employees’

perceptions and attitudes in a positive way through dependability, trust, and

fairness.

Transformational leadership is a well-developed and widely used

model of leadership. Studies in which transformational leadership was a

focus have typically used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form-5x

(MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1995). This instrument was used to assess the extent

of transformational leadership behaviors. Transformational leaders are more

adept than leaders who advocate other leadership models, such as

transactional leadership, at improving employee performance, commitment,

and satisfaction (Rothfelder, Ottenbacher, & Harrington, 2013). Assessing

the extent of leaders’ transformational leadership qualities is one way to

measure leadership effectiveness. Although transformational leadership

theory has explained the role of leadership in bringing change, the theory has

not expounded this matter in relation to nonprofit organizations.

Nature of the Study

A quantitative research methodology was chosen to support the

relationship between two variables by showing a correlational relationship.

The quantitative method provided ways to tackle the research questions by

analyzing whether a relationship existed, as well as the strength of the

connection between the variables (Miller et al., 2011). The topic of this

research required the ability to provide a basis for comparisons across

organizations and people, duplicating studies and developing a common

framework of reference for understanding the data. Quantitative research

differs from a qualitative research because of its objective point of view

concerning research participants and its unbiased computation of results.

Further, surveys have been widely used to examine leadership approaches

and to collect data on organizational culture

(Miller et al., 2011).

Data Collection Instruments

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995) and

the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (Cameron & Quinn,

1999) were the two instruments used for collecting data in this study. The

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which contains 45 behavioral

questions, measured independent variables of leadership. The Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire represented a broad range of leadership behaviors

to indicate three distinct leadership outcomes and nine hierarchical

leadership practices. This instrument included three scales for transactional

leadership, along with five scales for transformational leadership and one for

laissez-faire leadership. The purpose of this psychometric Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument was to assist organizations in identifying

their current culture and preferred culture. Participants determined their

perceptions of the existing and desired future culture through the

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument. Further, an organization

can use the outcomes to identify gaps between the current and desired future

culture of the organization. The intent was to collect 50 completed

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instruments and 50 completed

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires. The sample size of n=50 was

calculated using the G*Power.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995) is a

measurement instrument used to collect data and determine leadership style

as perceived by followers. Respondents completed the instrument by

identifying their level of agreement with statements that described passive

avoidant, transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire leadership styles

(Zahari & Shurbagi, 2012). Answers were captured via a 5-point Likert-type

scale. In responding to the statements, followers described the leadership

styles of the leader (Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2014).

Scholars have been using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for many

years; it has been validated and is considered suitable for measuring the

elements of leadership (Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2011).

Transformational leadership was the first leadership style assessed on

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. There are five subscales used for

measuring transformational leadership: Idealized Attributes, Idealized

Behaviors, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individual

Consideration. These subscales addressed the factors of leaders’ motivation,

behavior, support, and influence on staff (Zahari & Shurbagi, 2012).

The next leadership style measured on the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire was transactional leadership. There were three subscales used

for measuring transactional leadership: Contingent Reward, Active

Management by Exception, and Passive Management by Exception. These

subscales addressed the factors of leaders’ ability to exchange views,

criticisms, and negative reinforcement (Zahari & Shurbagi, 2012).

The third leadership style measured on the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire was passive avoidant leadership. There were two subscales

used for measuring passive avoidant leadership: Management by Exception

and Laissez-Faire. A Management-byException (Passive) leader was one

who intervened with their employees only when standards were not met and

problems had become highly noticeable or long lasting. Laissez-faire

described a leader who avoided tackling conflicts, and making effective

decisions (Zahari & Shurbagi, 2012). Permission to use and administer the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was obtained from Mind Garden, the

publisher of the instrument, via email, which can be found in Appendix C.

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

The instrument to measure the culture of an organization was the

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. Many organizations have

used the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument because it has

proven effective at predicting the performance success of staff members.

The primary purpose of the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument

was to help identify the current organization’s culture and then identify the

people capable of helping with the future demands and challenges the

organization may face.

Pollock and Roberts (2014) noted that Cameron and Quinn (1999)

developed the Organizational Culture Assessment, a six-question assessment

consisting of four alternatives. The primary purpose of the Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument was to measure the six important

dimensions of organizational culture (i.e., Dominant Characteristics,

Organizational Leadership, Management of Employees, Organizational

Glue, Strategic Emphases, and Criteria of Success). The six questions had

four alternatives (i.e., A=Clan, B=Adhocracy, C=Market, D=Hierarchy).

Participants completing the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument

were be able to show how the organization operates, as well as the values

that describe it. There were no right or wrong responses to the questions on

the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument; participants answering

the questions most likely gave different answers. Lastly, the Organizational

Culture Assessment Instrument was very useful for determining the various

methods of changing the culture of an organization.

The Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument is a public

domain document; therefore, obtaining permission to use it was not needed.

A copy of the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument can be found

in Appendix B. Permission to use and administered the Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument was obtained from the publisher of the

instrument via email.

Definition of Key Terms

Key terms relating to this study are defined as follows:

Active management by exception: Active management by exception is

a style of leadership reflecting a focus on critical areas that needed

immediate actions (e.g., a budget or planning). In this process, leaders look

for workers’ excellent performance and accomplishments (Vinkenburg, van

Engen, Eagly, & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2011).

Idealized influence: Idealized influence is the process of an employee

connecting to his or her leader and the objectives of the organization.

Idealized influence is an indicator of a leader who builds confidence and

trust and demonstrates the capability of being a good role model for

followers (Vandenberg et al., 2011).

Individualized consideration: Individualized consideration is the

process by which leaders use their abilities to understand the needs of each

follower as his or her own person. Individualized consideration provides

support, encouragement, and coaching to followers (Vanceburg et al.,).

Intellectual stimulation: Intellectual stimulation is the act of

subordinates perceiving old problems in new ways to inspire greater

awareness and create better solutions (Vinkenburg et al., 2011).

Laissez-faire leadership: Laissez-faire leadership is a hands-off style

of leadership in which the leader renounces responsibilities, makes no or

little effort to assist workers with attaining goals, and gives little or no

feedback to employees (Vinkenburg et al., 2011).

Leadership development: Leadership development is the process of

building on the transactional and transformational nature of leaders and the

interactions and networks of social systems in which leadership is evident in

employees or leaders (Vinkenburg et al., 2011).

Organizational culture: Organizational culture is the combination of

practices, values, beliefs, and underlying assumptions held by workers

collaborating to resolve difficulties and tackle challenges facing the

organization (Prajogo & McDermott, 2011).

Passive management by exception: Passive management by exception

is a style of leadership in which management intervenes only if the standards

of the organization are not met (Vinkenburg et al., 2011).

Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership is a style of

leadership in which a leader motivated followers to perform to their utmost

because the leader influences change, attitudes, and expectations to ensure

the organization achieves its mission (Vinkenburg et al., 2011).

Assumptions

This research was based on various assumptions. The assumptions

made helped in understanding that a certain level of uncertainty was possible

in the study. It was assumed that individuals who volunteered to participate

in the study would provide accurate data in the collection instruments

without bias or prejudice. Another assumption was that the sampled 100

staff members and leaders who volunteered to participate represented all

staff in nonprofit organizations in the United States of America. It was

assumed that volunteers for the study had observed the leadership practices

of leaders in the organization before agreeing to participate in the study. It

was also an assumption that the performance measurement instruments

would provide true results.

Limitations

This research was limited by the availability of resources in terms of

finance and time. Limitations of time and money meant that the sample was

reduced; the location of the study was limited to a single organization in

New York. Also, the research instruments were not one hundred percent

accurate in measuring the preferred variables in the research. Only

employees and leaders of a single nonprofit organization serving children in

New York City were eligible to participate. As such, findings of the study

were not generalizable to other locations, children and family nonprofit

organizations, or nonprofit organizations serving the needs of populations

other than children and families. Using quantitative measurement

instruments limited the findings to quantitative data; no qualitative data (e.g.,

staff perceptions of leaders’ leadership styles) was collected.

Scope and Delimitations

The limitations in the research were addressed by adopting a holistic

approach to the topic. The single organization was used to represent a whole

industry. However, the limitations were addressed by ensuring that the

results at any given stage were empirically tested against given indicators of

accuracy. The choice to select a nonprofit organization for the research was

based on the researcher’s limited financial resources and availability.

Because the study focused on the influence of organizational culture and

leadership styles on staff members’ commitment, only leaders and

employees at a nonprofit organization serving children and families and

volunteering as participants were included in this research.

Significance

This research is significant to governments, well-wishers, donors,

nonprofit organizations’ management, public service policy makers, and

researchers. The research examined the influence of organizational culture

and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment in a nonprofit

organization serving children and families. The influence of organizational

culture and leadership on staff members’ commitment in the for-profit arena

has been understood, but little was known about the impact of these factors

in the nonprofit realm. Given the involvement of nonprofit organizations in

attending to the needs of those at greatest risk, ensuring the employees of

these organizations are inspired to achieve the mission of the organization is

important. Leadership and organizational culture affect whether employees

of these organizations are inspired to achieve the mission. Knowing which

styles of leadership and organizational culture improve or undermine the

commitment of employees allows organizations to train and develop aspiring

leaders and thereby improve the influence of leaders on the organizational

culture and staff commitment. Providers of funds to nonprofit organizations

want to see their contributions being used well. Understanding the factors

influencing commitment helps policy makers come up with policies and

administrative structures that bring out the best in employees. These render

this study quite significant.

The research focus was to extend awareness of what leadership and

organizational culture involves and their connection to an employee

achieving the mission of a nonprofit organization serving children and

families, which has a positive social change on the individuals who benefit

from the social services provided by the organization. By examining how

organizational culture and leadership styles connected to staff members’

commitment, this study gives nonprofit social organizations better insight

into which leadership styles and organizational cultures are effective.

Leaders set the tone and direction for the people they manage. A

leader’s values, strategies, and experiences influence the leader’s leadership

style and organizational culture, which has an impact on staff commitment

outcomes. The findings of this study suggested that organizations should

invest more money in the training and development of leaders at all levels,

which could improve organizational culture and staff members’

commitment. Implementation of strong policies affect the way a leader

manages his or her employees. The leader may devote more time to making

sure followers adhere to policies than to motivating and growing staff—a

hallmark quality of a transformational leader.

Summary

The research examined the influence of organizational culture and

leadership styles on staff members’ commitment in a nonprofit organization

serving children and families in New York City. Measuring the extent of a

connection between organizational culture, leadership style, and staff

members’ commitment in a nonprofit organization provided insight into

which leadership styles promoted and developed leaders to inspire followers

and thereby improved organizational performance to meet the mission of the

organization and satisfy the needs of the people it served.

Chapter 2 introduces the literature review that established the

foundation of knowledge on leadership characteristics, organizational

culture, and staff members’ commitment. Chapter 2 also examines the

theoretical framework and gaps in current research. Chapter 3 introduces

the proposed research method, research design, and instruments that were

administered.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This research was aimed at examining the influence of organizational

culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment at a nonprofit

organization serving children and families in New York City. The

independent variable for the study was leadership styles, and the dependent

variable was the staff members’ commitment. In this chapter, I present a

review of the literature on leadership and organizational culture. After

explaining my literature search strategy, I offer the most practical definition

of leadership and leadership styles. I then review historical and modern

leadership styles, organizational culture and staff commitment, leaders, the

influence of culture in organizations, and staff members’ commitment. To

close, I discuss the proposed theoretical framework, as well as gaps in

current research.

Literature Search Strategy

In order to examine literature on leadership, highlighting staff

member’s commitment and job satisfaction with a focus on the nonprofit

sector and organizational culture, I used key databases, such as Sage

Knowledge, ProQuest, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, Emerald Group, and

JSTOR. In addition to the key databases, I referenced the Journal of

Scientific and Research Publications, Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, Journal of Business Communication, The Journal of

Developing Areas, Journal of Management Inquiry, International Business

and Economics Research Journal, Journal of Business Studies, Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, International

Journal of Business and Social Science, Journal of Business Ethics, and the

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.

For key terms, I used active management by exception, idealized

influence, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, laissez-faire

leadership, leadership development, organizational culture, passive

management by exception, and transformational leadership. The search for

professional and peer-reviewed journals was limited to publications dates

between 2003 and 2016.

Historical Perspectives of Leadership

Leadership is traced to the early days of civilization and has been

studied by scholars around the world. Although much is known about

leadership, Clifton (2012) asserted that little is relatively known, and what is

known is not entirely true, if it exists at all. The definitions of and the

perspectives of leadership have for some time evolved, as the attention from

the scholarly point of view had focused on the leadership topic for a long

time. The field of leadership had been broadly studied. Over time,

leadership has been intellectualized in terms of the characteristics and

personality traits of a leader and his or her power, skills, authority, and

position.

Leadership involves more than just the leader’s actions; leadership

involves a process. The concept of leadership has been defined as an

interactive process between leaders and followers (Eberly, Johnson,

Hernandez, & Avolio, 2013). Northouse (2010) defined leadership as the

process through which any individual influences a group with aims of

accomplishing a common goal. Shuck and Herd (2012) defined it as the

process that occurs between leaders and their followers, but not a set of

characteristics and traits. Ahlquist and Levi (2010) analyzed the theoretical

concept of leadership and determined more research was needed to

understand better what constitutes effective leadership.

In the organizational setting, the concepts of management and

leadership are not contingent on each other, but they are linked to each other.

Domnica (2012) distinguished between leaders and managers: a leader’s role

is to motivate and inspire individuals to follow, while a manager’s role is to

organize and coordinate. The manager handles the day-to-day activities of

the organization. He or she organizes, oversees, and plans, which an

organizational leader also does, but managers do not motivate or influence.

The most vital distinction between leaders and managers is that a leader

affects his or her staff, while the manager merely presides. Domnica (2012)

suggested that an organization would continue to thrive if there were strong

management and leadership, but the organization would fail or become

dysfunctional if both management and leadership were weak, or if

management was strong, but the leadership was poor. In either case, where

both management and leadership were not strong, the result would be chaos

(Domnica, 2012).

Leadership Definition

DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey (2011) described the

correlation between leadership behavior and experience. The authors

believed that leaders not actively engaged or carrying out actions consistent

with their roles were viewed as nonleaders and incompetent at leading.

Their criteria of effective leadership concentrated mainly on leadership as

the aim of evaluation, with the expectation that the passive leadership

behaviors of the leader were the significant predictors of effectiveness.

Passive leadership is an important predictor of outcomes of the satisfaction

and effectiveness with the leader, rather than job satisfaction or group

performance.

As Blume, Ford, Baldwin, and Huang (2010) explained, trainee

characteristics are the attitudes, personality, age, and trainability, together

with the overall environment where the training happens. Characteristics

can have a negative or positive effect on training. Training design focused

on the areas of training methods and objectives, together with the

incorporation of the principles of learning, like multiple opportunities and

training techniques for improved practice. The working environment

included continuous social support from peers and supervisors, the transfer

climate, and opportunities for or constraints on the performing of the

behaviors learned on the job.

As a result of conducting their meta-analysis, Blume et al. (2010)

clarified that the purpose of training for leadership development was to

improve the individual leader’s skills and performance on the job. The

purpose of transfer of training in leadership development was to improve

performance, evaluate training intervention programs, and develop leaders’

training methods that would increase knowledge and skills for better

organizational performance.

In discussing the results of their meta-analysis, Blume et al. (2010)

noted that the avenues that were most promising tended to have a training

cohort’s selection that was highly proactive and focused on improving the

trainee’s motivation, together with looking for ways to add supervisor levels

that are high and peer support within work environment. Also, Blume et al.

(2010) pointed out that learning results also related to the transfer,

suggesting that the program used in training could increase after training,

self-efficacy, and knowledge, the higher the chances that the trainees may

need to postpone the training process.

In discussing the results of their meta-analysis, Blume et al. (2010)

noted that the avenues that were most promising tend to have a training

cohort’s selection that was highly proactive and focused on improving the

trainees’ motivation, together with ways to add supervisor levels that were

high and the peer support within the work environment. Also, Blume et al.

(2010) pointed out that learning results also related to the transfer, hence

suggesting that the program used in training extent could increase after

training, self-efficacy, and knowledge, the higher the chances that the

trainees may need to postpone the training process.

Carroll and Levy (2010) wrote on the topic of leadership development

and noted that in 1992, Conger was the first to contribute to the topic of

leadership development topologies by identifying the skill-building,

feedback, conceptual, and personal growth approaches as the leadership

development field’s vital mainstream components. Leadership development

is an identity role for many leaders (Carroll & Levy, 2010). Carroll and

Levy (2010) suggested that those who wish to take part in any type of

leadership development, such as the participants, organization sponsors, and

facilitators, expound instead of reducing the identity options that would not

be creatively and strongly supported by other emancipatory types of

leadership development practices.

To further elaborate on the leadership development construct, Carroll

and Levy (2010) conducted a study of the characteristics and outcome of

leadership potential. In this inquiry, they drew data from over 80 leaders

between 17 and 28, who were termed as future in two similarly oriented but

separate programs in leadership development at University of Auckland

Business School in New Zealand Leadership Institute. According to Caroll

and Levy (2010), the program intended to not only provide support, but also

foster the leadership potential of people who were emerging into the

positions and roles of leadership at work and other life spheres.

Leaders in organizational settings perceive leadership as a practice. It

is important for leaders to be familiar with their environment and know what

is beneficial or not useful for their team. The concept of leadership practice

was described in the literature as “leadership-as-a practice to leadership

practice” (Raelin, 2012). Raelin (2012) expanded this simplistic statement

by noting that leadership-as-practice is more concerned with why, where,

and how the leadership’s work is organized and how it achieves than with

who is providing the visions for the colleagues to carry out. Further, the

primary advantage of leadership-as-practice is that the practitioners who aim

to adopt this approach are in a better position to reflect and understand.

Consequently, the practitioners can re-tailor their activities after reflection

and to represent mutual interests (Raelin, 2012).

For leadership-as-practice to transform into leadership practice,

researchers and practitioners need to provide leaders with a solid foundation

of effective, more meaningful actions, interventions, and changes in the

leadership development landscape. Raelin (2012) found that leadership-as-

practice was more about the achievement of a group of people than what a

solo person thought. Hence, it was concerned with the way leadership

unfolded after emerging through and coping with daily experience.

Raelin (2012) also stated that leadership was a practice whereby there

was dedication from the people, and through the leaders’ practices, they

came up with ideas, hoping to achieve and organize tasks carried out to

achieve their mission. The leaders were dedicated to each other as a

working team that was concerned with useful results.

Holmberg and Tyrstrup (2010) stated that leadership had become a

question of relationships between activities that were expected to happen in

the future and the activities happening today. Viewing the managers as the

strategic actors having a mission clearly placed them at the processes that

were sense-making. In addition, there existed a more complex interaction

between the historical events, need, expectations, and current activities to

exercise effective leadership. Improving knowledge, skills, and leadership

styles improved the way organizations functioned and performed. McLaren

(2011) explained that specialized expertise and experience are an

organization’s production means. An individual who was on the low levels

of the organization’s hierarchy and possessed a skill or piece of knowledge

that was not only complex, but also important, boasted of influence that was

greater than the position significantly higher. Correspondingly, a person of

the profession owned social connotations that were positive, and for

numerous individuals, their career’s pinnacle was to attain a management

role.

Leadership Theories

This part of the study deals with leadership theories, such as the

transformational leadership. This type of leadership mainly focuses on

raising one’s awareness levels, influencing others together with the self to

outdo self-interest so as the team can benefit, and motivating all team

members so that they achieve more than they perceived they could

accomplish. Pinnington (2011) suggested that the leadership’s

transformational model puts emphasis on the vision in a similar way as the

charismatic leader so that the two can foresee how the effective leader

enunciates the future’s compelling view. Leaders are responsible for placing

a significant influence on the organizational culture to maintain the present

structure or restructure that culture (Pinnington, 2011).

Transformational leadership focuses on vision and practical measures

to inspire others. Transformational leadership will fail when the leader is no

longer able to motivate followers, which can occur because of changes in

leadership or structure in the organization. Leaders must strive to encourage

followers to participate and give input in decision making (Pieterse, van

Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010). The previous and current literature

on leadership study has noted transformational leadership as being more

effective for leadership development. The transformational managers are

those who not only inspire others, but also stimulate others to attain

extraordinary outcomes, and in return, develop their capacity in leadership.

Transformational managers are not focused on short-term goals. Instead,

they concentrate on the long-term goal and place value on encouraging and

inspiring or coming up with the vision for followers to pursue. As the

leaders lead, they are also transformed in this relationship. There is support

for others to grow by the transformational managers, as the followers are

helped to improve their leadership through responding to their needs. The

managers tailor the goals and objectives of each worker, the group, the

manager, and the bigger institution.

In some situations, the role of the leader involves delegating

responsibilities to other members, under the proviso that members share the

same goal and commitment to the organization. Sharing of leadership

responsibility is vital and feasible for the organization when members can

identify with each other and the organizational mission. Canals (2011)

indicated that leadership is usually a relationship of inspiration through

which all the involved parties play a crucial role; it is also the technique of

mobilizing others to achieve shared goals. Hence, in markets that are

competitive and complex, leadership plays an important role in the

sustainability of the business (Canals, 2011).

The concept of transforming leadership was first introduced in 1978

by Burns’ descriptive research, which mainly focused on political leaders.

Several supervisors and managers later applied this concept in studies of

organizational behaviors. According to Burns, transforming leadership

stresses that the reciprocal and mutual relationship between followers and

employees ought to be increased to higher levels. This kind of relationship

not only yields higher possibilities in the two parties, but also leads to

greater capacity and chances for change. This relationship contrasts with

transactional leadership, which designates a relationship depending on

exchange or a transaction between the follower and a leader as a reward for

meeting set performance standards. Transactional managers believe that by

avoiding punishment and giving rewards, employees are motivated. This

transforming approach comes up with a noticeable change in not only the

organization’s, but also individuals’ lives by their values and perception, in

addition to changing their aspirations and expectations.

The differences between leadership and management are usually

evident in behaviors and characteristics. The transforming approach comes

up with a noticeable change in not only the organization’s, but also

individuals’ lives by their values and perception, in addition to changing

their aspirations and expectations. This is not the same in transactional

leadership, as transformation is not based on the relationship that is of give-

and-take—but on the leader’s ability, personality, and traits to come up with

changes by being a role model, enunciating a vision that is energizing, and

setting challenging aims. Transforming leadership ought to be a process

through which the leader and followers work together to help each other

advance to the next level of motivation and morale. This kind of

relationship leads to increased potential in all parties involved, in addition to

greater capability for professional and personal growth.

The full extent of leadership starts from transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Transformational leadership is

the most satisfying and effective, while the least used type of leadership is

passive leadership. The two leadership types have been described mainly by

their component behaviors, individualized considerations, intellectual

stimulation, idealized influence, and inspirational motivation. Leadership

theory focuses on effective leadership development in organizations,

teamwork, group performance, and the strategies used to lead followers

effectively. The purpose of leadership development is to improve leaders’

leadership abilities and enhance the performance of individuals in the

organization. Leaders must take the time to scrutinize the organizational

structure periodically to ensure the organization is operating smoothly and

meeting performance expectations.

Leaders and managers must be willing to accept change and offer

useful strategies for improving performance. Jarvis, Gulati, McCririck, and

Simpson (2012) concluded that the systems theories seem to be focused on

the required conditions for performance improvement and the alterations

required shifting to the intended state. Hence, one can understand the role of

leadership, together with the developments in it, as the phenomena that can

be undertaken “at one step removed,” like the system designer, although the

process point of view concentrates on dynamics that are evolving and related

to what makes an organization what it is now, how it has grown, and how it

has continued to evolve. Neither the leader’s development nor the leader

can be perceived as being somehow detached from the procedure and able to

have an influence as a bystander. Jarvis et al. also noted that leadership

development and leadership practices form a crucial part of the process that

has emerged. Improving and changing the organizational structure requires

input from the entire staff (Northouse, 2014).

Leadership development provides a model for leaders to expand their

knowledge and skills to recognize employee issues. The design will help

develop an effective strategy to solve these problems and improve the

expertise of leaders to formulate and set different values concerning the

organization, which in turn will assist them to make decisions that will lead

to successful productivity and performance.

Development of the Theory and Groundwork Studies on Leadership

Leadership theory is of interest to organizations whose leaders seek to

improve staff and organizational performance. Leadership competencies

and effective leadership styles will contribute to greater organizational

performance. Leadership skills are essential, and defining leadership

competencies will assist organizations in identifying future leaders.

Historical research on leadership theories continues to have an impact on

leadership development. Contingency leadership theory, path-goal theory,

behavioral theory, trait approach theory, and situational theory remain

relevant (Kutz, 2012). The following subsections offer highlights of these

theories.

Contingency leadership theory. Contingency leadership theory

explains the process of identifying the most talented leader and matching his

or her skills with the right organizational setting. Islam and Hu (2012)

explained that the contingency theory’s underlying assumption is that there

is no single organizational structure type that can be applied equally to all

organizations.

Path-goal theory. Path-goal theory centers on a leader’s ability to

motivate and influence staff to accomplish goals and increase organizational

performance. PolstonMurdoch (2013) stated that the path-goal theory was

designed to identify the most practical style of any leader. He also asserted

that the motivation to have subordinates achieve objectives and reinforce

decisions plays an imperative point in how interaction between the

subordinate and the supervisor takes place and that the reliance on this

interaction may lead to a bond that is strong between the two parties.

Behavioral theory. Behavioral theory focuses on the behaviors of a

leader. A leader’s behavior is a significant predictor of his or her leadership

because behavior influences leadership. As Amanchukwu, Stanley, and

Ololube (2015) explained, leadership’s behavioral theories show that all

great leaders are not born as leaders, but are made. This kind of theory

concentrates on all the actions undertaken by the leaders and does not focus

on the internal states or intellectual qualities of a leader.

Trait approach theory. Trait theory examines the different personal

and professional attributes of leaders. Characteristics such as integrity,

determination, and intellectual capacity can determine the extent of a

leader’s effectiveness. Amanchukwu et al. (2015) stated that trait theory

assumes that individuals inherit specific traits or qualities that make them

more suited to being a leader. The author in some cases pointed out a

certain behavioral or personality characteristic that many a leader shares.

Situational leadership theory. Situational leadership theory focuses

on the leader’s ability to manage situations and adapt to different leadership

styles to develop and support staff and the ongoing demands of the

organizational surroundings (McCleskey, 2014). According to McCleskey

(2014), situational leadership theory suggests that effective leadership

involves not only a situation’s rational understanding, but also a response

that is appropriate, instead of the charismatic leader boasting of a large

group made up of dedicated followers. Although these theories were

popular prior to the 1990s, they remain relevant to leadership development

today (McCleskey, 2014). There is a commonality among the various

studies involving these theories; scholars continue to study the theories to

understand better how effective leadership development can create a well

performing workplace. Understanding and increasing effort, motivation, and

determination among followers and leaders allows organizations to achieve

goals and satisfy the mission.

Leadership development provides a model for leaders to expand their

knowledge and skills to recognize employee issues. The design will help

develop an effective strategy to solve these problems and improve the

expertise of leaders to formulate and set different values concerning the

organization that, in turn, will assist them in making decisions that will lead

to successful productivity and performance.

Taylor (2012) asserted leadership is an art, craft, and an innovative

process in which leaders need to exceed expectations. Taylor (2012)

clarified that leadership is an innovative demonstration, to some degree due

to the difficulties that leaders confront” (p. 2). A creative leader is

somebody who has an incredible feeling of comprehension and endeavors to

determine issues. The innovative leader does not race to comprehend the

circumstance, but instead draws in with the circumstance and the procedure,

where he or she hones the act of administration and comprehends it.

The practical need to comprehend the way of leadership as a creative

craft and specialty by the leader’s familiarity with his or her qualities and

shortcomings to assemble a high-performing group and organization. Taylor

(2012) clarified that numerous leadership researchers have proposed that

susceptibility is a quality for leaders. There are several leadership

competencies. Taylor (2012), in his book, Leadership Craft: Leadership

Act, advances five dimensions of leadership competence to demonstrate

leadership development skills as “art” and “craft.” The leadership

development skills that he advances include:

Futuring, which encompasses foresight, intention, taking of

strategic action, as well as communication with those with

whom the leader works.

Sense making, which culminates in integrative thinking,

making a disciplined inquiry, recognizing patterns, as well as

effective communication.

Designing an intelligent action based on the leader’s

sensibility, the level of commitment, the perception of an

issue, and a formulation of stabilizing strategies.

The ability to align people to action that is inclusive of

creating capacity, engaging others, attracting others, listening

to other people, and understanding them.

Adaptive learning, which entails the ability to recognize

challenges, reflexive learning, creating generative space, and

leveraging forward knowledge.

Taylor (2012) clarified that the competency model originated from the

Banff staff’s perusing of the literature and their work with leaders, which is

an incredible endeavor to portray the special abilities of leadership.

Leadership capabilities in an organizational setting center on the

leader’s abilities, knowledge, and attributes that improve staff performance

and eventually that of the organization. Taylor (2012) clarified that the

colossal metaskill of leadership initiative practice is like an umbrella over

the greater part of the other leadership abilities. It is the act of taking a

gander at your practice that contains and enhances the other craft of

leadership.

Role of Leadership Versus Management

Early studies differentiated between the roles of leaders and managers.

The contrast between leaders and managers was distinguished before the

start of the 1970s. Simonet and Tett (2012) conducted a study to explain

how leadership and management were conceptualized with a common

language of distinct abilities distilled from over 50 years of study of

leadership and management.

Simonet and Tett (2012) pointed to a study by Zaleznik, who

commented that the business world has systematized bureaucratic control in

the form of the critical thinking manager, who is inverse to a leader in many

ways. Whereas managerial objectives emerge from previous responses, a

manager’s goal is future driven. The work of management is a practical,

empowering process requiring persistent coordination, though leaders create

excitement at work by uplifting expectations through images and signifying.

Simonet and Tett (2012) characterized leadership as a subset of the

greater idea of management. Leadership is essential, and its exact nature is

an element of a person’s organizational position; a manager regularly

oversees and ensures that both management and leadership activities are

complete as necessary. As Simonet and Tett clarified, the role of a leader

should include creating the best possible methodologies that are predictable

and quantifiable, with the goal of enhancing performance in the

organization. Managers concentrate on completing things in the best and

productive way, while leaders focus on the necessities of the staff, the sense

of commitment to the organization, its mission, and its vision.

The role of leadership and management are further distinguished by

the notion of leadership in management. Simonet and Tett (2010) expressed

the basis for leadershipin-management; a leveled course of action might be

that initiative is frequently considered as fundamentally including

individuals. Management is managing people as one of the different

possible resources in a more extensive field of situational requests,

constraints, and actions (Simonet & Tett, 2012).

Lunenburg (2011) asserted that leaders and managers play distinctive

but similarly dominant roles in an organization. According to Lunenburg,

there is continuing discussion about the distinction between leadership and

management. Managers do not practice leadership, and the discernment is

that anybody in a management position is a leader, but not all leaders

manage (Lunenburg, 2011).

Lunenburg (2011) noted that Zaleznik was the first researcher to write

about the role of leaders and managers. As Lunenburg (2011) noted,

Zaleznik argued that leaders and managers both make a huge commitment to

an organization and each input is distinctive. Leaders advocate for change

and new methods, while managers support stability and the status quo. Also,

leaders concentrate on understanding individuals’ beliefs and gaining their

commitment, while a manager’s responsibility to the organization is to carry

out responsibilities, exercise authority, and worry about how things get

accomplished (Lunenburg, 2011).

In defining the role of management, Lunenburg (2011) wrote that

management is responsible for actualizing the vision and direction provided

by leaders, planning and staffing the organization, and taking care of

everyday issues. Management should maintain a relationship and open

communication with their staff, which will prompt efficient organizational

performance.

Sun and Anderson (2012) characterized management as playing a

significant role in organizational learning by going about as a conduit and

filter for information flowing between the top and lower levels of the

organization. Managers at this level can regularly impact subordinates than

top management because of their closeness (Sun & Anderson, 2012). Sun

and Anderson (2012) referred to Bass et al., who expressed that sergeants’

impact on the performance of U.S. armed forces units was more prominent

than that of senior platoon leaders. They credited this distinction to

sergeants having day-to-day contact with the platoon individual’s members

and having a huge impact on their preparation.

Leadership became the focus of organizational studies with the

emergence of the great man theory, according to which leaders have

particular qualities—for example, knowledge, self-assurance, assurance,

trustworthiness, adaptability, amiability, and passionate development (Orazi,

Turrini, & Valotti, 2013). Orazi et al. (2013) suggested that the relationship

between management and leadership is entwined because one cannot work

without the other. Leaders must have what it takes, vision, and assets to

have the capacity to oversee the organization. As Orazi et al. (2013)

clarified, “subsequently, the contrast amongst leadership and management is

the associations they need to civil servants working at different hierarchical

levels. The role of managers is presently said to accomplish authoritative

execution by using existing administrative systems and exploiting available

resources. Also, part of the leader’s role is to proactively provide line

managers with the most appropriate tools, resources, and competence to

achieve organizational performance (Orazi et al., 2013, p. 491).

Jarvis et al. (2012) asserted that system theories are geared towards

enhancing performance, and therefore, the changes that leaders and

managers make in organizations need to focus on achieving the same goal as

the system theories. In as much as process perspective focuses on

developing relationships that will define an organization, account for its

progress, and enhance its growth, there is a need to understand the tenets of

leadership, which is a gradual procedural process. The leader and the

leader’s development should be treated as a whole in the process of attaining

organizational growth and increasing performance level, because both are

the means to an end and it is difficult to attain the impact by treating them

separately. Therefore, it could be assumed that acts of leadership, as well as

leadership development, are very significant in the entire process of

organizational growth and performance levels (Jarvis et al., 2012).

Literature of Leadership and Management Development

Considerable research on leadership and management development

has included discussions of various strategies and interventions intended to

improve organizational performance. For instance, Edwards, Elliot, Iszatt-

White, and Schedlitzki (2013) noted the current research on leadership and

the buildup around leadership advancement in contemporary organizations

has an impact on how leadership characteristics are built as primarily

masculine, forceful, controlling, and confident “flawless beings” (p. 6).

Edwards et al. (2013) proceeded by highlighting that the process of

leadership development and learning should abstain from presenting

leadership as a settled, fixed identity or role, but instead encourage

awareness of multiple roles (leader, follower, and both). Additionally,

leadership learning and improvement should reinforce the voices of option

models to the masculine, powerful, and individualistic one” (p. 6).

Helsing and Howell (2013) addressed leadership development and the

importance of developing effective leaders by recommending that leaders

build up their personalities and be more inspired to learn and practice new

skills. Improving the probability that one will be powerful in one’s roles and

have more prominent viability prompts an expanded feeling of significance

about one’s leadership personality.

Helsing and Howell (2013) continued, noting that the foregrounding

of developmental considerations in understanding incredible leadership

helps to clarify how it is that leaders with various identities and

characteristics (e.g., extraversion versus inner-directedness, extremely

disapproved of by followers versus open and adaptable) exceed expectations

as leaders if they have the necessary fundamental capacities for their work.

This point of view can outline the leaders’ development, as they exhibit

abilities and practices and exercise insightful judgment” (p. 372).

The role of managers and leaders was chosen from among the

different approaches to leadership development based on their traits and

their preference for transformational or behavioral theories. Holmberg and

Tyrstrup (2010) suggested that studies that follow the behavioral

management approach have contended with separating conceptualizations

for instance, Gulick and Urwick’s well-known POSDCORB (planning,

organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting).

Additionally, the fracture of managerial work remains an essential concern,

while challenging the depiction of management as the intellectual,

intelligent, orderly achievement of predetermined objectives and the

comprehension of the exceptionally responsive work example of managers is

still in question.

Holmberg and Tyrstrup (2010) expressed that leadership has turned

into a question of connections between activities that happen today and those

that may occur later. This perspective of managers as strategic actors with a

mission puts them at the center stage of the sense-making processes.

Additionally, there is a much more complex connection between current

activities, historical events, expectations, and the need to exercise effective

leadership.

Improving knowledge, skills, and leadership styles can improve the

way organizations function and perform. McLaren (2011) clarified that

particular mastery and experience are methods of creation for an

organization. Ownership of essential and complex bits of information or

abilities can give a person on the low rungs of an organization’s chain of

importance more noticeable impact than that of positions that are

fundamentally higher. Additionally, a person of a profession has

constructive social implications, and while for some individuals,

accomplishing a management role is a pinnacle of their career, for others,

being an expert holds a more noteworthy status.

Lee, Gillespie, Mann, and Wearing (2010) detailed an assessment of

organizational leaders, their insight, and their capacity to convey trust to

staff to enhance performance. Building great leadership within an

organization requires approaches that implement organizational standards to

encourage better performance. These methodologies should allow for the

development of strategies and interventions to advance successful change all

through the organization and guarantee that individual skills advancement is

accessible to leaders and their staff. Lee et al. (2010) declared that

incredible leaders could convey positive changes to the organization.

Efficient and skillful leaders have the power to bring positive changes

to their environments. Their role is crucial to improving followers’

performance because, in improving followers’ performance, the organization

becomes more effective.

Kotzé and Venter (2011) stated that the effectiveness of leadership

described as a process brings success to a group or organization.

Additionally, it refers to how successful an individual already in a leadership

position is at influencing, motivating, and enabling others to achieve group

or organizational success, a view supported by Bass” (p. 403).

Outcomes of Leadership

As indicated by Kampkötter (2016), the issues that influence work

performance can enhance the viability and efficiency of an organization.

Kampkötter (2016) contended that variables like benefits and pay are

imperative, yet the most critical element influencing sustained job

satisfaction is a positive rapport between leaders and their workers. Workers

who feel secure, that the compensation is adequate, and that leaders create a

positive and safe workplace, will probably commit long-term to the

organization.

Effectiveness

Alsayed, Motaghi, and Osman (2012) measured leadership

effectiveness by considering the four areas of productivity in authority seen

by leaders or workers. The four areas of productivity are (a) the pioneer’s

execution, (b) the pioneer’s commitment to the viability of the association,

in view of occupation-related elements, and (d) representatives conveying

their needs to their managers. They used the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995), which they revealed was steady in

measuring the viability of the organization and evaluating the level of

employees (Alsayed et al., 2012). Alsayed et al. established that workers’

view of adequacy is more stable than other sorts of organizational

evaluations, such as budgetary execution markers or results on a test.

Alsayed et al. theorized that employees might see organizational

effectiveness individually or barely, rather than even more expansively.

Satisfaction

In measuring leadership, employee satisfaction with the leader is

important. Alsayed et al. (2012) measured employees’ fulfillment with

leadership given how they perceived the leader’s mastery and his or her

ability to establish a relationship with employees. In this review,

employees’ achievement spoke to an assessment of employees’ reverence

for their leader’s approach and practices.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is an instrument that had

been used significantly in leadership study to distinguish between efficient

and inefficient leadership qualities in nonprofit, for profit, education, and

government environments (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire has been changed over time. The current version

of the questionnaire contains a broad range of leadership behaviors. In print,

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-5X is the only version of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire-5X contains 45 behavioral items, representing a broad range

of leadership behaviors to signify nine different ranked leadership practices

and three leadership results.

Bass and Avolio (1995) created the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire to assess transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

leadership elements. The questionnaire is an appropriate instrument to

evaluate and measure the full scope of leadership components (Bass &

Avolio, 2004). The Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire is comprised of 45 behavioral items that are evaluated on a

five-point Likert-response scale (Bass). The 45 items include twenty

questions related to transformational leadership, which measure

inspirational, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration; eight

questions related to transactional leadership attributes, which measure

contingent reward and active management; and eight questions related to

laissez-faire leadership, which describe laissez-faire and passive

management actions. Additionally, the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire assesses a leader’s leadership style by computing the

aggregate for each of the leadership scales. It also assesses the

organization’s level of employee satisfaction and effectiveness.

A study conducted by Gardner and Cleavenger (1998) examined the

degree to which management approaches were related to transformational

leadership as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The

authors showed that of the unbiased coefficient alpha in the study estimates

for each scale of this measure, most surpassed .70, with some in the .80

and .90 territory. This outcome showed adequate levels of internal

consistency. Additionally, the outcomes demonstrated multivariate F

proportions of F (364,548) =141, p <.001 were significant. The authors

found that impression management strategies are related to transformational

initiative.

Barbuto conducted a study in 2005, examining 186 leaders and their

subordinates by using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. In the

study, the leader’s instrumental motivation shared a negative connection

with the individualized consideration (r=-.16; p <.05). However, that

motivation was antecedent to transformational leadership. A leader’s self-

concept internal motivation was significantly correlated with the leader’s

self-reported transformational behaviors (r=.32, p <.01) Inspirational

Motivation (r29=.27, p < .01) Individualized Consideration (r=.23, p <.01),

and Intellectual Stimulation (r=.27, p <.01). Also, goal internalization was

significantly correlated with the leader’s self-reported Intellectual

Stimulation (r=.15, p <.01).

Zahari and Shurbagi (2012) used the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995) to measure transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire elements of leadership behavior. Permission

to use and administer the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was obtained

from Mind Garden via email.

In addition, a study conducted by Zopiatis and Constanti (2010)

supported the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and its reliability in

similar situations. The reliability assesses the scores on the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire subscales, which ranged from average to

satisfactory across different studies.

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument

Scholars have yet to reach an agreement on the measuring or

definition of organizational culture. Despite this, many researchers agree

that there is a likelihood that organizational culture turning is an important

actor when it comes to the behaviors of the employee in the workplace.

Organizational culture is widely conceptualized and understood, in that it is

shared among the members, occurs at many levels, such as the

organizational and group levels, and has an influence on the behaviors and

attitudes of workers.

Taking these components into account, organizational factors are

described as the basic beliefs, assumptions, and values that are shared and

that characterize any scenario. All newcomers have taught them in thinking

and feeling ways, passed on by stories and myths told by humans regarding

how the organization came to exist as it is, together with ways to solve any

problems. The behaviors are reproved or reinforced, and values are

embedded overtly or subtly within the organizational culture. The levels of

organizational culture issues are the underlying assumptions, symbols,

artifacts, and espoused symbols. The artifacts include the language, dress,

myths, rituals, and the space of the organization. In all organizations,

especially those in the nonprofit sector, organizational commitment is of

huge interest because workers who are highly committed are more likely to

showcase workplace behaviors that are desirable.

The Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument is an instrument

centered on the framework’s competing values used to provide researchers

with a tool to quantitatively evaluate organizational culture (Cameron &

Quinn, 1999). The Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument contains

six units, which represent the six organizational culture elements of

management of employees, organizational leadership, strategic emphasis,

criteria for success, organizational glue, and dominant characteristics. The

six units consist of four different cultural types of the competing values

framework. The competing values framework differentiates the

organization’s cultures into four types of culture: adhocracy, clan, hierarchy,

and market. The cultural profile and dominant characteristics of an

organization can be determined by using the Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instrument through a self-reporting survey. The Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument consists of six questions, and each question

includes four alternatives, making a total of twenty-four items. The

questions are worth 100 points each.

The Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument was designed to

accommodate the collection of cultural information on many organizations

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999). This instrument is in a survey format, intended

for participants to respond to only six items. The Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instrument includes identifying the current culture, which

allows respondents to identify where they believe the organization is now,

and where they would like to see the organization in five years. The purpose

of the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument is to collect the

fundamental assumptions of the operations and characteristics of the

organization. When completing Organizational Cultural Assessment

Instrument, there is no right or wrong answers. The Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instrument is a public domain document; therefore, obtaining

permission to use it was not needed. A copy of the Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instrument. Permission to use and administer the

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument was obtained from the

publisher of the instrument via email.

Gaps in the Research

Historical data, past research, the Internet, and books were broadly

accessed to reach the gaps in research (Jing & Avery, 2011). The extensive

evaluation of the literature revealed that there was no lack of studies focused

on the topic of leadership and organizational culture (Jing & Avery, 2011).

Although there were few, there was also research on the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment

(Jing & Avery, 2011). It is uncommon to find studies on the impact of

organizational culture together with leadership styles on staff commitment in

the nonprofit sector. Thus, by way of clarifying the gap between

organizational culture and leadership styles on the impact of staff members’

commitment, it was important to identify the situational constraints and

influences that affect organizational culture and leadership, including staff

attitude towards job satisfaction. The intent of the researcher was to see how

organizational culture and leadership styles become parameters influencing

staff commitment in the selected sector.

Outcomes of the study would prepare leaders to decide the

organizational culture and which leadership styles to adopt, so that staff

members are more motivated and committed to performing well in their

respective organizations. Organizational leaders who adopt the appropriate

style will help to encourage loyalty and trust in their organizations. Yukl

(2013) asserted that transformational leadership comes with changes in the

behaviors and attitudes of organizational members, together with inducing

members’ commitment to the mission and goals of the organization.

According to Kim (2014), transformational leadership has important positive

effects on the effectiveness of employees across all cultures. The literature

on combining both organizational culture and leadership with the nonprofit

organization literature was sparse, as there are few studies. A study on

Indian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) was carried out in 2012.

These organizations operate like nonprofit organizations and the study

examined the interplay between program outcomes, transformational

leadership, and organizational culture. The results of the study revealed that

transformational leadership had come up with the organizational culture,

which later impacted the measures’ effectiveness (Mahalinga, 2012).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of transformational leadership is useful to

organizational leaders because they use this style of leadership to create a

positive environment. Transformational leaders have strong connections to

their followers. These leaders motivate followers to build teams and become

leaders themselves (Ghasabeh et al., 2015).

Transformational leadership is the leadership approach through which

the interactions between the involved parties take place in a collective

purpose and in a manner that transforms, supports, and motivates the

development of leadership skills in others involved in the interaction

(Simola et al., 2012). According to the theory of transformational

leadership, transformational leaders help employees to go beyond probable

achievement and increase their job satisfaction, which leads to a greater

commitment to the organization (Pradhan & Pradhan, 2016).

Transformational leaders try to change employees’ perceptions and attitudes

in a positive way through dependability, trust, and fairness.

Transformational leadership is a well-developed and widely used

model of leadership. Studies in which transformational leadership has been

a focus have typically used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form-

5x (Bass & Avolio, 1995). This instrument was used to assess the extent of

transformational leadership behaviors. Transformational leaders are more

adept than leaders who advocate other leadership models, such as

transactional leadership, at improving employee performance, commitment,

and satisfaction (Rothfelder et al., 2013). Assessing the extent of leaders’

transformational leadership qualities is one way to measure leadership

effectiveness.

Summary

In this chapter, the objective was to use a considerable amount of data

and approaches that would show the correlation between organizational

culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment. Leaders have

used various approaches and styles to inspire their followers and thereby

advance individual and organizational performance. The United States

contingent in the nonprofit sector to execute public policy was intended to

help disadvantaged and vulnerable people. To accomplish this, nonprofit

organizations should retain dedicated employees to perform these crucial

services efficiently. The valuable contribution of this research relates to the

examination of another factor known to influence staff members’

commitment and organizational culture. This research used the theoretical

framework of transformational leadership to explore leadership, which is

frequently applied to nonprofit organizations. This research was unique

because it examined the influence of both organizational culture and

leadership styles on staff members’ commitment. Chapter 3 includes an

overview of the study methodology, including a discussion of the process,

instruments, data collection, data analysis, informed consent, ethical

considerations and protections, and researcher bias.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this quantitative research was to examine the influence

of organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’

commitment in a nonprofit organization serving children and families in

New York City. Findings from this research will assist leaders of the

nonprofit organization serving children and families in recognizing the

presence of challenges and determining what measures might be helpful in

improving the leadership culture of the organization. In this chapter, I

describe the research design, including instruments, reliability and validity,

sample size, the data collection plan, data analysis plan, informed consent,

researcher bias, and ethical protections. The potential impacts of social

changes as well as policy implications are also presented.

Research Design and Rationale

After careful consideration of the research methods and related

research designs, I decided that the quantitative research method with a

correlational design best fit the research questions. The quantitative research

method was the most suitable strategy for this study because the emphasis of

the research supported the objective associated with the quantitative research

method (of assessing the relationship between the variables; Frankfort-

Nachmias & Nachmias. 2008).

The targeted population consisted of full-time employees who worked

for a nonprofit organization serving children and families located in New

York City. I used a quantitative method to perform this research using a

correlational research design to examine the influence of organizational

culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment in a nonprofit

organization serving children and families. The correlation design

determined whether there was a relationship between two variables. The

independent variable for this study was leadership styles, and the dependent

variable was the staff members’ commitment.

Methodology

Population

A research population is a distinct collection of objects or individuals

having related characteristics. For this research, my targeted population was

staff members working for a nonprofit organization serving children and

families located in New York City. The city of New York has many

organizations that are nonprofit and whose main interest is serving children,

together with their families. The reason why I used one organization is that

it was impossible to survey all organizations that are nonprofit in New York

City. In addition to this, this organization was ideal because of the number

of staff members that were available.

In research, a researcher has the option to choose from the three

research methods: quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodology. It is vital

that a researcher examine the contingencies of his or her study before

deciding to employ a research method. The option of choosing a research

method is contingent on the purpose of the research, the type of data used,

and the procedure used in examining the data (FrankfortNachmias &

Nachmias, 2008). For my research, the quantitative method was employed

to gather data that I then represented in numeric form. The data were

measurable and objective. The qualitative method includes studying a

subject and finding as many details as possible. Additionally, the mixed

methodology involves a mixture of both the quantitative and qualitative

methods to answer the research questions.

The quantitative approach was more appropriate than the qualitative

and mixed method approaches for many reasons, which included the type of

data collected, the objectives of the research, and statistical testing

(Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). Based on the characteristics and a

full range of leadership behaviors in the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, the quantitative design was used. The nonexperimental

quantitative method was better and more suitable than the other two research

methods due to the concepts of the transformational and transactional

leadership approaches. The collaboration of the transformational and

transactional approaches included the leader’s ability to inspire their

employees to work, demonstrating a high level of communication and being

a social support to their employees. Research designs that included an

experimental approach and examined employees’ wellbeing, workplace

relationships, leadership styles, or that involved observation, case studies,

and personal interviews were not suitable for this research because of

anonymity.

Sampling and Sampling Procedures

In this research, the unit of analysis was individual leaders and

employees. The unit of analysis was the actual source of data, consisting of

an organization, group, or an individual. Contingent on the purpose and the

research questions, the unit of analysis was the organization or the individual

research. If the primary research focus were on the outcomes of the

organization—for example, organizational changes or financial stability—

then the unit of analysis was the organization. The emphasis was on

leadership style and staff members’ commitment; therefore, the individual

was the unit of analysis.

This research used a nonprobability sampling method called

convenience sampling (Landreneau, 2009). In the convenience sampling,

the sample was chosen mainly based on what the researcher could access.

The participants (nonmanagement staff) were selected for this research

because they were easier to recruit than management staff. The purpose of

the convenience sampling in this study was to acquire participants based on

their availability. The focus was on nonmanagement staff working for Little

Sisters of Assumption Family Health Service, a nonprofit organization

serving children and families located in New York City. Participants of this

research were given access to a web-based Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire and the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument. The

instruments were distributed to 100 nonmanagement staff involved with

Little Sisters of Assumption Family Health Service, a nonprofit organization

serving children and families located in New York. The intent was to collect

50 completed Organizational Cultural Assessment Instruments and 50

completed Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires.

Sample Size

Sample size is critical for ensuring that research outcomes represent a

whole population. A sample size consisting of supervisors, middle

managers, and employees would be representative of a nonprofit

organization serving children and families located in New York City. The

intention of collecting completed Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instruments and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires was to

conduct a power analysis to determine the suitable sample size. The purpose

of power analysis was to make sure that the results signified the whole

population (Deskin & Acta, 2013). The sampling was done by using a

random sampling that was non-list-based. Through this sampling method, a

maximum number of participants were captured, therefore ensuring the

effectiveness of the survey.

G*Power 3 is a software application the researcher used to conduct a

statistical power analysis (Prajapati, Dunne, & Armstrong, 2010). G*Power

3 was employed to determine a suitable sample size. Further, it was

important for the researcher to try to maintain a power level of .80 (Myors &

Wolach, 2014). The confidence level was set at 95%, or an alpha criterion

value of .05, as recommended by Myors and Wolach. Achieving the

statistical power level of .80 indicates that there is an 80% possibility of

finding a significant coefficient of determination (R2). Per Myors and

Wolach (2014), a sample size of 100 participants, including an alpha level of

.05, will produce a confidence level of 95%. Therefore, the researcher was

determined to acquire a minimum sample size of 100 participants to

complete the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument for this study.

Data Collection Procedures

The data was collected through administration of both the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire and the Organizational Cultural Assessment

Instrument. Collecting the data was conducted via email. The first step was

to email individual participants the invitation and the informed consent form

to participate in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument. The informed consent form

described the research, the participant’s role, voluntary participation,

anonymity, and confidentiality. After the informed consent form was

returned to the researcher, the link to access both the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire and Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument was sent

out to the individual participants. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument were disseminated

via an email link to the actual Internet site. Also, there was no collection of

personal or demographic data on participants, and only the researcher

worked with each participant’s data from the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire and Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument. The

only data the researcher will share with the nonprofit organization are the

results of the research.

Based on the effectiveness and efficiency of data collection with the

Internet, collecting data with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and

Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument through the Internet was the best and most

efficient way. The individual participants received links to complete both

instruments. Collecting data in an automated way makes it the best way of

transferring the data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and downloading the

data into the SPSS spreadsheet. The participants were given two weeks to

complete the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument. A reminder email with the links enclosed

was sent out to the individuals after two weeks as a reminder to complete the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instrument.

The first instrument, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, was

used to evaluate leadership styles. Permission to administer the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire was obtained from Mind Garden, the publisher of

the instrument, via email, which can be found in Appendix A. After

receiving approval to conduct the research, permission was requested from

the instrument publisher to download a rater form, which was essentially a

self-evaluation form. The rater form was completed and returned to the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire publisher for final approval before it

was administered to research participants.

The second instrument, the Organizational Cultural Assessment

Instrument, was used to assess current preferred organizational culture and

was obtained directly from its developers (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument is a public domain

document; therefore, obtaining permission to use it was not necessary. A

copy of the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument. Permission to

use and administer the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument was

obtained from the publisher of the instrument via email.

I informed the Walden University Institutional Review Board (IRB) of

my plan to use both instruments. I was advised to obtain permission from

authors and publishers to use the instruments. I received permission from

the sources of both instruments. The Walden University IRB approved

authorization (IRB#0503190193035) to proceed with the study data

collection. I sent out the consent form and hyperlink to the questionnaire via

email. Initially, the plan was to recruit a research assistant to distribute the

instrument and thoroughly explain the rationale of the study to the

participants. The process to recruit, train, and supervise a research assistant,

however, can be time consuming. Additionally, due to working with limited

resources, it would have been an additional expense, which was not feasible.

Instrumentation

I administered a brief demographic questionnaire, the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995) and the Organizational

Culture Assessment Instrument (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) to a sample of

100 employees of a child and family nonprofit organization. The

demographic questionnaire captured data about the size of the organization,

the respondent’s job title, and the duration of time in the respondent’s

current position. Details of these instruments are presented in the following

subsections.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995) is a

measure of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership

behavior. Its primary function is to assess the full range of leadership

factors. The instrument has been found to be reliable in evaluating

performance and employee satisfaction. A rater form was used to capture

employees’ perceptions of the manager’s leadership style and data on the

organizational culture (see Appendix A). The instrument has been validated

and is considered a suitable instrument to evaluate the elements of leadership

(Schimmoeller, 2010). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire can be

completed in approximately 20 minutes. Participants complete the 45-item

questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale, the values of which range from 0

= not at all to 4 = frequently, if not always.

Of the 45 items, seven are used to measure organizational outcomes,

three are used to measure organizational effectiveness, four measure

employee satisfactions, and 36 describe the nine leadership factors of

interest in the proposed research. Leadership style items from the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire measure the following factors

(Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Transformational leadership style. Transformational leadership

style is measured by scores on five factors. One factor is the attribute of

idealized influence: The leader is respected, trusted, and admired. The

second factor is the behavior of idealized influence: The leader is persistent,

determined, and a risk taker. The third factor is inspirational motivation:

The leader engages and motivates staff to see a brighter future. The fourth

factor is intellectual stimulation: The leader encourages creativity and seeks

out different viewpoints when trying to resolve problems. The fifth factor of

transformational leadership style is individualized consideration: The leader

accepts changes and acts as a mentor or coach (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Transactional leadership style. The transactional leadership style is

measured by scores on three factors. The first factor is contingent rewards:

Leaders focus on rewarding individuals who are accountable for attaining

performance goals. The second factor is active management by exception:

Leaders monitor mistakes and concentrate on critical areas that need

corrective action. The third factor is passive management by exception:

Leaders wait for mistakes to occur, then immediately take corrective actions

(Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leadership style is measured

by the score on a single factor: Leaders are resistant to make changes or

decisions in the organization (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument

The second instrument used in this research was the Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument. The primary purpose of the Organizational

Cultural Assessment Instrument is to identify the current organizational

culture and the individuals capable of helping the organization to meet its

future demands and challenges. This instrument has been proven to be

effective in predicting organizational performance success (Suderman,

2012). The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument was also found

to have high reliability (Suderman, 2012).

The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument is a tool based on

the competing values framework used to provide researchers with a tool to

quantitatively evaluate organizational culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

The Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument contains six units that

represent the six organizational culture elements of management of

employees, organizational leadership, strategic emphasis, criteria for

success, organizational glue, and dominant characteristics. The six units

consist of four different cultural types of the competing values framework.

The competing values framework differentiates the organization’s cultures

into four types of culture: adhocracy, clan, hierarchy and market. The

cultural profile and dominant characteristics of an organization can be

determined by using the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument

through a self-reporting survey. The Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument consists of six questions, and each question includes four

alternatives, making it a total of total 24 items. The questions are worth 100

points each.

The Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument was designed to

accommodate the collection of cultural information on many organizations

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999). This instrument is in a survey format, intended

for participants to respond to only six items. The Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument includes identifying the current culture, which

allows respondents to identify where they believe the organization is now

and where they would like to see the organization in five years. The purpose

of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument is to identify the

fundamental assumptions of the operations and characteristics of the

organization. When completing Organizational Cultural Assessment

Instrument, there is no right or wrong answers.

The Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument is a public

domain document; therefore, obtaining permission to use it was not

necessary. A copy of the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument

can be found in Appendix B. Permission to use and administer the

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument was obtained from the

publisher of the instrument via email, which can be found in Appendix C.

Cameron and Quinn (1999) developed the Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument, a six-question assessment, to measure the six

dimensions of organizational culture (i.e., dominant characteristics,

organizational leadership, management of employees, organizational glue,

strategic emphases, and criteria of success). The six questions have four

alternative answers (e.g., A = clan, B = adhocracy, C = market, and D =

hierarchy). In answering the questions, participants demonstrate how the

organization operates, as well as the values that describe it. The

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument is useful for determining

methods of changing the culture of an organization.

The six key dimensions of culture are (a) dominant characteristics, (b)

organizational leadership, (c) management of employees, (d) organizational

glue, (e) strategic emphases, and (f) criteria of success. Dominant

characteristics represent the structure and formality of the process through

which management determines what people do in the organization.

Organizational leadership is the role leaders’ play as risk takers, innovators,

providers of inspiration, and operational overseers of the business.

Management of employees includes sustaining employees’ stability and

keeping employees inspired and motivated. Organizational glue involves

sustaining a smoothrunning and top-performing organization by holding the

organization together. Strategic emphases include having stability,

permanence, efficiency, and ongoing successful operations in the

organization. Criteria of success include having success based on efficiency,

dependability, teamwork, staff commitment, and performance (Heritage,

Pollock, & Roberts, 2014). The Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument can be completed in approximately 20 minutes. The

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument measures four different

culture types: hierarchy, market, clan, and adhocracy (Heritage et al., 2014).

Hierarchy culture. Hierarchy culture represents an environment that

is relatively stable. The functions and responsibilities are combined and

organized. There is consistency in services and products. Staff and jobs are

well managed (Heritage et al., 2014). In the hierarchy culture, achievement

is described by integration of decision makers of well-defined authority,

procedures and consistent rules, and accountability and control mechanisms

(Heritage et al., 2014).

In a hierarchy structure, the leader’s role is to organize and manage

activity to sustain a successfully running organization. Workers follow the

leader’s instructions (Heritage et al., 2014). Consistency, efficiency, and

stability describe the long-term concerns of a hierarchy organizational

culture (Heritage et al., 2014).

Market culture. In the context of the Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument, the term market means an organization operating as

a market through teamwork, consensus, and participation. This type of

culture focuses on completing work and getting tasks done effectively

(Heritage et al., 2014). The market culture organization is mainly concerned

with the external environment: customers, licensees, regulators, suppliers,

and unions (Heritage et al., 2014). The market culture primarily operates

through financial exchange, in which the productivity and competitiveness

of the organization depend on control and strong external positioning

(Heritage et al., 2014).

Clan culture. The clan culture organization is typically a family

organization and emphasizes strong collaboration, open communication,

participation, employee development, and teamwork (Heritage et al., 2014).

Clan culture promotes a caring work environment, where the role of

management is to empower workers by acquiring their commitment, loyalty,

and participation (Heritage et al., 2014). In the clan culture organization,

leaders are loyal mentors and parent figures (Heritage et al., 2014). The

success of a clan culture organization is contingent on sufficient

participation, teamwork, and consensus, which is a positive internal

environment with concern for individuals’ needs (Heritage et al., 2014).

Adhocracy culture. The adhocracy culture is popular in the

filmmaking, aerospace, and software industries. These organizations require

adaptability and innovation; there is no form of authoritative relationships or

centralized power. As Heritage et al. (2014) explained, in an adhocracy

culture, “authority flows from person to person or from one task team to

another based a complicated issue that needs addressing at that moment” (p.

2). In the adhocracy culture, individuals are perceived as being exceptional

risk takers with positive views; they expect and understand that change is

necessary (Heritage et al., 2014).

Operationalization of Constructs

Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership is a style of

leadership in which a leader motivates followers to perform to their utmost

because the leader influences change, attitudes, and expectations to ensure

the organization achieves its mission.

Transactional leadership style: Transactional leadership style is

measured by scores on three factors. The first factor is contingent rewards:

Leaders focus on rewarding individuals who are accountable for attaining

performance goals.

Laissez-faire leadership: Laissez-faire leadership is a hands-off style

of leadership in which the leader renounces responsibilities, makes no or

little effort to assist workers to attain goals, and gives little or no feedback to

employees.

Organizational culture: Organizational culture is the combination of

practices, values, beliefs, and underlying assumptions held by workers

collaborating to resolve difficulties and tackle challenges facing the

organization.

Data Analysis

Participants’ demographic profiles were not obtained for this research.

The data for the research was obtained from the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire and the

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. The data was downloaded

into the SPSS 24.0 and analyzed directly from there. The first step in

examining quantitative data was to calculate the key descriptive statistics

(e.g., the percentages, means, standard deviations, and frequencies) to

identify the key characteristics of the sample and the preferred leadership

styles and staff members’ commitment. Variability based on participants’

responses was estimated by calculating the coefficient of variation as an

indicator of the accurateness of the responses from the questionnaire. Also,

Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency. Information

identifying study participants was stored on a password-protected computer

to which only I have access. These data will be stored for three years after

the study is completed, after which they will be deleted.

Reliability

This section discusses the reliability and validity of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire and the Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument. Reliability and validity are used by researchers to determine the

internal consistency of instruments and to measure continuity of the

construct validity. Reliability, according to LoBiondo-Wood and Haber

(2010), refers to the quality, repeatability, or consistency of the measurement

of the study. Validity, according to Antonakis and House (2013), refers to

the accuracy or truth of the research. The measurement and design must be

pertinent to the research questions to answer the questions correctly. This

kind of validity is described as internal validity. The external validity

indicates if the results can be generalized beyond the subjects studied.

Reliability is described as the degree to which an assessment

instrument produces reliable and stable outcomes (LoBiondo-Wood &

Haber, 2010, p. 290). Reliability of the research is contingent on the

instruments used to collect the data. Researchers conducting a similar study

found that instruments like the ones used in this study yielded reliable results

(McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2010). Bass and Avolio (1995)

found that the reliability of the items on the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire and the leadership factors ranged from 0.74 to 0.94.

Although the instruments were considered likely to support the

reliability of this research, I conducted additional testing to verify the

reliability and to confirm that the data reflected internal consistency of the

instruments. Data collected from the participants were used to calculate

Cronbach’s alpha to validate the reliability of the instruments proposed for

use in the study.

Research Questions

Responses to the hypothesis developed helped to back up the basis of

understanding and knowledge of organizational culture and leadership styles

on staff members’ commitment at a nonprofit organization serving children

and families in New York City. This research sought to identify the

connection between leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’

commitment. The variables being measured in this case explored the

positive aspect of hierarchical organizational culture, a culture that is based

on rules and procedures to guide employees on what to do.

The independent variable for this research was leadership styles, as

measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The dependent

variable was the staff member’s commitment. The variables being measured

in this case explored the positive aspect of hierarchical organizational

culture, a culture based on rules and procedures to guide employees on what

to do. The leadership style that is team, strategic, democratic, or cross-

cultural was assumed to have no association with the staff member’s

commitment. The dependent and independent variables clearly showed the

association between leadership styles and the commitment of the staff to the

nonprofit organization.

This researcher further sought to identify the connection between

leadership and nonprofit staff members’ commitment. This research was

based on the following questions and the related hypotheses:

RQ1: To what extent, if any, did staff members’ perception of

transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles influence the level of

commitment to the nonprofit organization by its staff members?

Ho1: The perceptions of staff members concerning leadership styles

(transformational and laissez-faire) had no effect on their

commitment to the nonprofit organization.

Ha1: The staff members’ perceptions regarding leadership styles

(transformational and laissez-faire) had an effect on their

commitment to the nonprofit organization.

RQ2: What extent, if any, did staff members’ perceptions of the

organizational culture influence the level of commitment of staff members to

the organizational mission?

Ho2: The staff members’ perceptions of organizational culture had

no effect on the level of commitment of staff members to the

organizational mission.

Ha2: The staff members’ perceptions of organizational culture had an

effect on the level of commitment of staff members to the

organizational mission.

Commitment is being measured by observing the behavior of

employees towards an organization (Law, 2017). In doing this, a clear

analysis was made by observing whether the employees love what they do in

in their organizations, are self-motivated by living by their inner attitude of

success, come up with creative solutions, and how they anticipate problems.

Looking at what kind of questions employees ask, looking at the confident

attitude with which they face challenges, and observing the determination

employees had in completing tasks give a good measurement of

commitment in organizations. Observing how big pictures of thinking

capacity are being portrayed among employees, by seeing a greater

achievement of what they do. Observing whether employees sought new

skills to expand their experience, the extra miles employees took that were

beyond expectations, the kind of pressure employees put on themselves to

complete their task regardless of supervision. Also, observing how

employees embraced new changes that were necessary for the success of

given organization, and checking on the kind of enthusiasm employees had

in meeting the organization’s needs are ways that are being used to measure

commitment.

Commitment is being operationalized in many ways. This is being

achieved by taking various positive steps that create a working environment

that suggests to the employees by action that they are valued at their work

(Park & Hassan, 2017). Better incentives are one part that employers are

addressing to influence a positive commitment. Additionally, observing

fairness, supporting employees to achieve a workable balance, and above all,

implementing quality supervision are ways that are operationalizing

commitment. Other factors that are facilitating commitment come as a result

of initiating a positive satisfaction. They include stating guidelines that

define job requirements and work behavior appropriately, having a

supportive communication with senior management and supervisors, and

having a quality supervisory relationship. Also, implementing

developmental experiences and training that are favorable, clearly defining

the career paths and goals, having a frequent formal and informal

recognition, observing objective and fair feedback on any provided

performance, and having rewards and benefits sufficiency.

Threats to External Validity

Validity is measured in terms of internal validity and external validity

(Drost, 2011). Internal validity is the truth about inferences regarding a

causal relationship. The instruments used in this research were found to

have internal validity (Antonakis & House, 2013). They represent a precise

measure of relevant constructs based on the questions. External validity is

the ability of the results to be generalized to other populations or situations.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire demonstrates strong validity

across organizations and cultures (Leong & Fischer, 2011). Many

researchers have incorporated this instrument into their studies because it is

proven to be effective in many different organizational settings (i.e.,

financial, community-based and social services organizations [Sadeghi &

Pihie, 2012]).

Regarding the external validity of the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, many studies have reported that transformational leaders

were found to have developed a better commitment and relationship with

their followers within their organization. The construct validation regarding

the measure of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was designed to

defend the responses and criticisms of this instrument. The main criticism of

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is the high correlation between

transformational scales (Barling, 2014). The Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire is both valid and reliable (Alsayed et al., 2012). The reliability

of the scales is high, including the ones measuring the outcomes.

Threats to Internal Validity

Many potential limitations occur within the realm of quantitative

studies. Internal validity in the field of science refers to the extent of which

casual conclusion that is based on a study is warranted (Drost, 2011). It

helps in the determination of the degree in which the study can minimize

systematic errors. Researchers conducting a quantitative study can assess

the research questions and hypotheses, but they are not able to completely

measure the fundamental experiences and complexity of the participants’

views.

To achieve internal validity, it was vital that the causal inferences

were presented. Causal inferences could happen if a cause and effect

relationship occurs, or when there is a real explanation as to why the effect

happened. Therefore, the threats to internal validity can happen when there

is a misinterpretation of the cause and effect order, or if bias occurs in the

sample.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations were addressed by the approval, informed

consent, and privacy process and by the steps taken to prevent researcher

bias. The informed consent form delineated participants’ rights during and

after the study about privacy, anonymity, confidentiality, and protections

against harm. There was no known risk of harm that resulted from

participating in this research. The instruments were completed in the

privacy of participants’ homes or a private area at the children and families’

nonprofit organization at participants’ convenience.

I abided by the guidelines of the Walden University IRB. I was the

primary researcher and limited access to the data to other trustworthy

individuals to help with validation of the survey results.

Approval

Prior to the beginning of the study, permission was requested to use

and administer the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire from the publisher

of the instrument, Mind Garden, via email. In addition to this, before the

research was conducted and data collected, I informed the Walden

University IRB of the plans that I had of using the two instruments. I was

advised to obtain permission from authors and publishers to use the

instruments, and I received permission from the sources of both instruments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is required for studies involving human subjects and

must be obtained before data collection is begun. Everyone who expressed

an interest in participating in the research was provided with an informed

consent form. Eligibility requirements to participate in this research were

that participants must have been employed by the nonprofit organization, but

not in a management or decision-making role. The informed consent form

included relevant information about the research and the process by which

the researcher ensured confidentiality, anonymity, data security, how the

research was used, and participants’ rights to quit the research at any time

without repercussion.

Privacy

The names of the participants were seen only by the researcher to

protect their confidentiality. Only the researcher knew the participants’

identities. The data collected from the participants were locked in a safe

place known only to the researcher. All data stored in the computer were

kept in a secured locked file with a password known only to the researcher.

The participants’ data were not given to the nonprofit organization. The

organization will be able to view the results of the whole survey, but not see

the participants’ responses.

Researcher Bias

My educational background, as well as my 12 years of experience

working as a program manager for a nonprofit social service organization,

had allowed me to develop a keen awareness of the day-to-day

responsibilities of an effective leader, the working culture, climate, and

concerns of the organization. My experiences, background, and

opportunities for understanding what leadership styles involved would be

unobtainable for someone outside of the leadership realm. Because of my

experiences as a program manager in a nonprofit social service organization,

it was important for me to address the risk of bias and the influence it had on

the outcome of the research.

My biases influenced how I interpreted and examined the data. The

data can have a positive or negative outcome on the research process.

Therefore, it was important for the researcher to work extremely hard to

improve the credibility of the research. Also, it was equally important that

my role and awareness of the biases were correctly defined.

Recognizing my past and current research writing experiences was

important. It helped me to become more insightful of my opinions that

may or may not have enriched my research.

Finally, it was important to recognize that certain limitations could

pose a threat to the credibility of this research and affect the bias and

outcome of the research. To tackle the limitations, I employed valid data

that supported my findings, leading to positive results.

Positive Social Change

The research focus was to extend awareness of what organizational

culture and leadership involved and their connection was to an employee

achieving the mission of a nonprofit organization serving children and

families, which could have a positive social change on the individuals who

benefited from the social services provided by the organization. By

examining how organizational culture and leadership styles connect to staff

commitment, nonprofit social organizations can have better insight into

which leadership styles and organizational cultures are effective.

Overall, the implications for social change is having a better

understanding of the dynamics of the relationship between organizational

culture and leadership styles and how it creates the potential for positive

impact on staff commitment. This understanding results in organizations

maintaining their ethical responsibility towards employees by promoting and

supporting job satisfaction, leading to employees fulfilling their ethical

responsibility by performing well, thereby creating a healthier and improved

working environment, not only for the organization, but society as well.

Policy Implications

Leaders set the tone and direction for the people they manage. A

leader’s values, strategies, and experiences influence the leader’s leadership

style and organizational culture, which have an impact on staff commitment

outcomes. The findings of this research suggested that organizations should

invest more money in training and development of leaders at all levels,

which could improve organizational culture and staff members’

commitment. Implementation of strong policies may also affect the way a

leader manages his or her employees. The leader may devote more time to

making sure followers adhere to policies than to motivating and growing

staff—a hallmark development quality of a transformational leader.

Summary

This chapter explained the proposed research methodology for the

research. The research was performed using a quantitative method with a

correlation design. The independent variable for this research was

leadership styles, measured by Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire, and the dependent variable was staff members’

commitment. This chapter included an explanation of the research design,

instruments, data collection and data analysis plans, informed consent, and

matters of ethics. The research determined whether organizational culture

and leadership styles impacted the commitment of staff members serving a

child and family organization in New York City. The quantitative method of

research was used to address the difficulty of determining the degree to

which a relationship exists between organizational culture, leadership styles,

and the measures of staff members’ commitment outcomes. The study

employed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which has been widely

used as a reliable, valid tool across much professional training to attain a

broad range of leadership behaviors. The Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument was employed to evaluate the essential elements of

the organization’s culture. Chapter 4 discusses the specifics of the findings

and results of this research.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this quantitative research was to examine the influence

of organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’

commitment in a nonprofit organization serving children and families in

New York City. In addition to understanding the influence of leadership

styles and organizational culture, the study also examined the role of

recognition and reward on the commitment of the staff members.

The study also identified different variables, which was a crucial aspect of

the research. The underlying approach for identifying the variables was that

the leaders could influence the commitment of the staff members, as they

held the potential for ensuring, motivating, and encouraging job satisfaction.

On the other hand, the mission of an organization is outlined by the

organization culture, and it holds the potential for influencing the

commitment of the staff members. Overall, staff commitment is shaped by

culture and leadership, which in turn, affect policy-making and

administration in public entities, such as non-profit organizations.

Data Collection

The data were collected with the help of Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instrument and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The data

were collected via email. In the first step, an invitation and informed

consent were sent to the participants to ask for their participation.

Confidentiality, anonymity, voluntary participation, and the participant’s

role were described in the consent form. After receiving the consent form,

the link to access both the instruments was sent to the participants. The links

were disseminated through e-mail. Also, no demographic and personal data

was collected on the participants. I was the only person to work on the data

received from the instruments.

Collection of data through the instrument was the most effective way,

given the efficiency and effectiveness of collecting data via email. I

transferred the data into Excel and imported it to the SPSS spread sheet.

Results

Table 1

Correlation Between Focuses, Fails, Avoids, and Talks

Focuses Fails Avoids Talks

Pearson

Correlation

Focuses 1.000 .609 .461 -.157

Fails .609 1.000 .652 .314

Avoids .461 .652 1.000 -.142

Talks -.157 .314 -.142 1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) Focuses . .006 .036 .038

Fails .006 . .003 .118

Avoids .036 .003 . .299

Talks .280 .118 .299 .

N Focuses 16 16 16 16

Fails 16 16 16 16

Avoids 16 16 16 16

Talks 16 16 16 16

As shown in Table 1, Pearson’s r was 0.609 for Fails, .416 for Avoids

and 157 for Talks. For this reason, I concluded that there was a strong and

moderate relationship between the employees’ perception of the culture and

that of the managers. However, there was a weak and negative correlation

between staff members’ commitment and managers’ leadership styles. The

Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 1 Fails, Avoids, and Talks was 0.006, 036, and

0.038, respectively. Since these values were less than the .05 threshold,

there was a statistically significant correlation between the managers’ and

the participants’ rating of their leadership styles.

Table 2

Correlation Between Is, Seeks, Future, and Instills

Is Seeks Future Instills

Pearson

Correlation

Is 1.000 -.389 -.488 -.334

Seeks -.389 1.000 .491 .217

Future -.488 .491 1.000 .446

Instills -.334 .217 .446 1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) Is . .061 .023 .095

Seeks .061 . .023 .201

Future .023 .023 . .037

Instills .095 .201 .037 .

N Is 17 17 17 17

Seeks 17 17 17 17

Future 17 17 17 17

Instills 17 17 17 17

As shown in Table 2, Pearson’s r was -.389, -.488, and -.334 for

Seeks, Future, and Instills, respectively. For this reason, I concluded that

there was a weak relationship between the employees’ perception and that of

the managers. However, there was a weak and negative correlation between

staff members’ commitment and managers’ leadership

style.

The Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 2, Seeks, Future, and Instills,

was .061, .023, and .095 respectively. Given that this value was more

than .05, data did not support a correlation between the managers’ and the

participants’ rating of their leadership styles.

Table 3

Correlation Between Discusses, Waits, Accomplished, Specifies, and Spends

Discusse

Wait

Accomplishe

Specifie

Spend

Pearson Discusses 1.000 -.164 .287 .307 .404

Correlatio

Waits -.164 1.000 -.255 -.173 -.561

Accomplishe

.287 -.255 1.000 .783 .574

Specifies .307 -.173 .783 1.000 .580

Spends .404 -.561 .574 .580 1.000

Sig.

(1tailed)

Discusses . .280 .150 .132 .068

Waits .280 . .180 .268 .015

Accomplishe

.150 .180 . .000 .013

Specifies .132 .268 .000 . .012

Spends .068 .015 .013 .012 .

N Discusses 15 15 15 15 15

Waits 15 15 15 15 15

Accomplishe

15 15 15 15 15

Specifies 15 15 15 15 15

Spends 15 15 15 15 15

As shown in Table 3, Pearson’s r was -.164, .287, .307, .404, 0.0001,

and .280 for Waits, Accomplished, Specifies, and Spends, respectively. As

we know, the significant value is considered to have strong correlations

between the variables. Due to this reason, I concluded that there was a weak

relationship between the employees’ perception and that of the managers.

The Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 3, Seeks, Future, and Instills,

was .280, .150, .132, and .068 respectively. This value was more than .05.

Because of this, data supported a statistically insignificant correlation

between the managers’ and the participants’ rating of their leadership styles.

Table 4

Correlation Between Makes, Shows, Goes, Treats, and Demonstrates

Makes Shows Goes Treats Demonstrates

Pearson

Correlatio

Makes 1.000 .366 .707 .661 -.142

Shows .366 1.000 .160 -.052 .418

Goes .707 .160 1.000 .894 -.269

Treats .661 -.052 .894 1.000 -.333

Demonstrates -.142 .418 -.269 -.333 1.000

Sig.

(1tailed)

Makes . .099 .002 .005 .314

Shows .099 . .292 .430 .068

Goes .002 .292 . .000 .176

Treats .005 .430 .000 . .122

Demonstrates .314 .068 .176 .122 .

N Makes 14 14 14 14 14

Shows 14 14 14 14 14

Goes 14 14 14 14 14

Treats 14 14 14 14 14

Demonstrates 14 14 14 14 14

As shown in Table 4, Pearson’s was .366, .707, .661, and -.142 for

Shows, Goes, Treats, and Demonstrates, respectively. For this reason, I

concluded that there was a strong relationship between the employees’

perception and that of the managers.

The Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 4, Seeks, Future, and Instills,

was .099, .002, .005, and .314, respectively. This value was more than .05

for some variables and less than .05 for others. Because of this, I concluded

that there was a statistically significant correlation between the managers’

and the participants’ rating of their leadership styles and a significant

correlation between the managers’ and the participants’ rating of their

leadership styles.

Table 5

Correlations Between Acts, Concentrates, Considers, Keeps, and Displays

Acts Concentrate

Consider

Keeps Display

Pearson

Correlatio

Acts 1.00

.236 .560 -.42

.362

Concentrate

.236 1.000 .213 .460 -.036

Considers .560 .213 1.000 .064 .344

Keeps -.42

9 .460 .064 1.00

0 -.495

Displays .362 -.036 .344 -.49

5 1.000

Sig.

(1tailed)

Acts . .199 .015 .055 .092

Concentrate

.199 . .222 .042 .450

Considers .015 .222 . .410 .105

Keeps .055 .042 .410 . .030

Displays .092 .450 .105 .030 .

N Acts 15 15 15 15 15

Concentrate

15 15 15 15 15

Considers 15 15 15 15 15

Keeps 15 15 15 15 15

Displays 15 15 15 15 15

As shown in Table 5, Pearson’s was .236, .560, -.429, and .362 for

Concentrates, Considers, Keeps, and Displays, respectively. For this

reason, I concluded that there was a strong and moderate relationship

between the employees’ perception and that of the managers.

The Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 5 was .199, .015, .055 and .092 for

Concentrates, Considers, Keeps, and Displays, respectively. This value was

higher than .05. Because of this, data supported that there was a statistically

insignificant correlation between the managers and the participants’ rating

of their leadership styles.

Table 6

Correlation Between Articulates, Directs, Decisions, Aspirations, Gets, and

Helps

Articulate

Direct

Decision

Aspiration

Gets

Pearson

Correlatio

Articulate

1.000 -.244 -.778 .714 .833

Directs -.244 1.000 .580 -.185 -.41

Decisions -.778 .580 1.000 -.608 -.77

Aspiration

.714 -.185 -.608 1.000 .844

Gets .833 -.411 -.772 .844

1.00

Helps .765 -.255 -.717 .720 .894

Sig.

(1tailed)

Articulate

. .222 .001 .005 .000

Directs .222 . .024 .282 .092

Decisions .001 .024 . .018 .002

Aspiration

.005 .282 .018 . .000

Gets .000 .092 .002 .000 .

Helps .002 .212 .004 .004 .000

N Articulate

12 12 12 12 12

Directs 12 12 12 12 12

Decisions 12 12 12 12 12

Aspiration

12 12 12 12 12

Gets 12 12 12 12 12

Helps 12 12 12 12 12

As shown in Table 6, Pearson’s was -.244, -.778, .714, .833, and .765

for Directs, Decisions, Aspirations, Gets, and Helps, respectively. For this

reason, I concluded that there was a strong and moderate relationship

between the employees’ perception and that of the managers.

The Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 7 was .222, .001, .005, .000,

and .002 for Directs, Decisions, Aspirations, Gets, and Helps respectively.

For some, it was higher than .05, which showed that there was a statistically

insignificant correlation between the managers’ and the participants’ rating

of their leadership styles. On the other hand, for some variables, it was

lower than 0.05, which showed that there was a statistically significant

correlation between the managers’ and the participants’ rating of their

leadership styles.

Table 7

Correlation Between Suggests, Delays, Emphasizes, Expresses, and

Achieved

Suggest

Delay

Emphasize

Expresse

Achieve

Pearson

Correlatio

Suggests 1.000 -.606 .675 .717 .644

Delays -.606 1.000 -.760 -.685 -.742

Emphasize

.675 -.760 1.000 .839 .893

Expresses .717 -.685 .839 1.000 .837

Achieved .644 -.742 .893 .837 1.000

Sig.

(1tailed)

Suggests . .004 .001 .000 .002

Delays .004 . .000 .001 .000

Emphasize

.001 .000 . .000 .000

Expresses .000 .001 .000 . .000

Achieved .002 .000 .000 .000 .

N Suggests 18 18 18 18 18

Delays 18 18 18 18 18

Emphasize

18 18 18 18 18

Expresses 18 18 18 18 18

Achieved 18 18 18 18 18

As shown in Table 7, Pearson’s r was -.606, .675, .717, and .644 for

Delays, Emphasizes, Expresses, and Achieved, respectively. For this reason,

I concluded that there was a strong and moderate relationship between the

employees’ perception and that of the managers.

The Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 7 was .004, .001, .000, and .002 for

Delays,

Emphasizes, Expresses, and Achieved, respectively. This value was lower

than .05. Because of this, I concluded that there was a statistically

significant correlation between the managers’ and the participants’ rating of

their leadership styles.

Table 8

Correlation Between Needs, Uses, Do, Authority, Works, Heightens, and

Requirements

Nee

Use

Do Author

ity

Wor

Height

ens

Requirem

ents

Pearson

Correla

tion

Needs 1.00

.93

.79

.911 .94

.897 .894

Uses .93

1.0

.73

.939 .88

.892 .889

Do .79

.73

1.0

00 .776 .80

6 .793 .760

Authority

.91

.93

.77

6 1.000

.91

6 .949 .956

Works .94

.88

.80

.916 1.00

.949 .917

Heightens .89

.89

.79

.949 .94

1.000 .921

Require-

ments

.89

.88

.76

.956 .91

.921 1.000

Sig.

(1tailed)

Needs . .00

.00

.000 .00

.000 .000

Uses .00

. .00

.000 .00

.000 .000

Do .00

.00

. .000 .00

.000 .000

Authority .00

.00

. .00

.000 .000

Works .00

.00

.000 . .000 .000

Heightens .00

.00

.000 .00

. .000

Require-

ments

.00

.000 .00

.000 .

N Needs 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Uses 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Do 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Authority 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Works 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Heightens 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Requirem

ents

15 15 15 15 15 15 15

As shown in Table 8, Pearson’s r was .939, .794, .911, .942, .897, and

.894 for

Uses, Do, Authority, Works, Heightens, and Requirements, respectively.

For this reason, I concluded that there was a strong relationship between the

employees’ perception and that of the managers. The Sig. (1-Tailed) value

in Table 8 was lower than .05 for all variables. Because of this, data

supported that there was a statistically significant correlation between the

managers’ and the participants’ ratings of their leadership styles.

Table 9

Correlation Between Works, Heightens, Requirements, Increases, Leads, and

Rewards

Work

Heighte

Requireme

nts

Increas

Lead

Rewar

Pearso

Correl

-tion

Works 1.00

.921 .895 .921 .92

.612

Heightens .92

1.000 .822 1.000 .88

.614

Requireme

nts

.89

.822 1.000 .822 .93

.541

Increases

.92

1 1.000 .822 1.000

.88

2 .614

Leads .92

.882 .934 .882 1.00

.609

Rewards .61

.614 .541 .614 .60

1.000

Sig.

(1taile

Works . .000 .000 .000 .00

.003

Heightens .00

. .000 .000 .00

.003

Requireme

nts

.00

.000 . .000 .00

.010

Increases

.00

0 .000 .000 .

.00

0 .003

Leads .00

.000 .000 .000 . .004

Rewards .00

.003 .010 .003 .00

N Works 18 18 18 18 18 18

Heightens 18 18 18 18 18 18

Requireme

nts

18 18 18 18 18 18

Increases 18 18 18 18 18 18

Leads 18 18 18 18 18 18

Rewards 18 18 18 18 18 18

As shown in Table 9, Pearson’s r was .921, .895, .921, .924, and .612

for Heightens, Requirements, Increases, Leads, and Rewards, respectively.

For this reason, I concluded that there was a strong relationship between the

employees’ perception and that of the managers. The Sig. (1-Tailed) value

in Table 9 was lower than .05 for all variables. Because of this, data

supported that there was a statistically significant correlation between the

managers’ and the participants’ rating of their leadership styles.

Table 10

Correlation Between EFF, EE, Transformational, IIB, IIA, IC, SAT, and

MBEP

EFF EE Trans. IIB IIA IC SAT MBEP

Pearson

Correla-

tion

EFF 1.000 -.326 -.306 -.232 -.097 -.249 -.153 -.071

EE -.326 1.000 .059 .501 .478 .424 .878 -.328

Trans. -.306 .059 1.000 .418 .280 .606 .093 -.128

IIB -.232 .501 .418 1.000 .845 .563 .565 -.144

IIA -.097 .478 .280 .845 1.000 .458 .619 -.183

IC -.249 .424 .606 .563 .458 1.000 .444 -.254

SAT -.153 .878 .093 .565 .619 .444 1.000 -.559

MBEP -.071 -.328 -.128 -.144 -.183 -.254 -.559 1.000

Sig. EFF . .118 .134 .203 .365 .185 .293 .401

(1tailed) EE .118 . .418 .029 .036 .058 .000 .117

Trans. .134 .418 . .061 .156 .008 .371 .325

IIB .203 .029 .061 . .000 .014 .014 .305

IIA .365 .036 .156 .000 . .043 .007 .257

IC .185 .058 .008 .014 .043 . .049 .181

SAT .293 .000 .371 .014 .007 .049 . .015

MBEP .401 .117 .325 .305 .257 .181 .015 .

N EFF 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

EE 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Trans. 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

IIB 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

IIA 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

IC 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

SAT 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

MBEP 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Note. Transfer = transformational.

As shown in Table 10, Pearson’s r was -.326, -.306, -.232, -.097,

-.249, -.153, and -.071 for EFF, EE, Transformational, IIB, IIA, IC, SAT,

and MBEP, respectively. For this reason, I concluded that there was a

negative and weak relationship between the employees’ perception and that

of the managers.

The Sig. (1-Tailed) value in Table 10 was higher than .05 for all

variables. Because of this, I concluded that there was a statistically

insignificant correlation between the managers’ and the participants’ ratings

of their leadership styles.

Regression of OCAI Profile, Health, Social Care, and the US

In order to check the reliability of the data collected through OCAI,

Cronbach’s alpha was used. The value of Cronbach’s alpha for this case

was 0.978, which is highly acceptable. Table 11 shows the correlation

coefficient of the dependent variable (staff commitment level) and OCAI

health and OCAI US. The results showed that both OCAI health and OCAI

US were negatively correlated with staff members’ commitment level.

Table 11

Coefficient Correlations

Model 1 OCA IUS OCAI Health

Correlations OCAI US 1.000 -.976

OCAI health -.976 1.000

Covariance OCAI US .027 -.025

OCAI health -.025 .025

Note. Dependent Variable: Staff commitment level.

The clan culture is archetypes for supportive culture archetype and

defined by timeliness, which has been engaged with the system, and its

utility has also been derived in order to access the flexibility and internal

focus on various aspects of the functioning of the organization. The

adhocracy culture is delineated by flexibility and external focus, which are

aspects of bisecting continua of OCAI. The aspects of adhocracy are to

emphasize specialization and rapid changes in the organization. The

hierarchy is internally focused and stability aspects by internal focus and

stability of OCAI continua for bureaucratic culture. The market culture is

delineated by the external focus and stability aspects of OCAI continua. The

aspects have been derived from the various systems, and it is one of the

important factors that are associated with its criteria.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

The fundamental aim of any study is to demonstrate its truth in its

value, provide a base for the application of its findings, and give room for

external critiques based on the consistency of the procedures employed to

the neutrality of the research findings and recommendations (Korstjens &

Moser, 2018). The purpose of this quantitative research was to examine the

influence of organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’

commitment to an organization serving children and families. The

participants’ questionnaire and survey focused on the behavioral

characteristics of leadership styles and the organizational culture. I ensured

trustworthiness in collecting and analyzing data. I attempted to reduce the

results without bias. To ensure that this research reflected validity and

trustworthiness, I used and discussed the techniques to guarantee credibility,

dependability, transferability, and confirmability.

Credibility

Credibility refers to the level of confidence an audience can place in

the truth obtained from the findings arrived at during the research (Korstjens

& Moser, 2018). In such a case, credibility establishes whether findings

arrived at represent the credible information obtained from the original data

provided by the participants and if they represent a participant’s original

opinions. The study used a multispectral approach in the analysis of

participants’ responses to give an all-around perspective in arriving at

findings and conclusions. Moreover, the experts played a critical role in

explaining key terms and drawing causal relationships in cases where

responses could not be readily determined. The credibility of the study was

further maintained by appropriate storage of information, both in physical

forms and hard copies; only authorized personnel had access to the

information.

Transferability

Transferability, on the other hand, refers to ability of the results of the

research to be transferred to different settings or contexts, such as

quantitative research (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). The researcher achieved

this objective through a detailed description of the underlying parameters.

Dependability

Dependability is one of the most significant aspects of trustworthiness

in the research because it develops the findings of the research study as

repeatable and consistent. Dependability is the stability of the research

findings for an extended period. Dependability was achieved by allowing

the participants to evaluate the research findings and recommendations to

ensure that they were all based on the data provided by the respondents.

Confirmability

Confirmability is the last aspect of research trustworthiness.

Confirmability, which is the extent to which other researchers can confirm

the findings of the study, was achieved by ensuring that the interpretations

and findings of the study were purely based on the data collected from the

respondents.

Summary

The degree to which organizational culture influences leadership

styles was a question asked to the participants. The responses of the

participants showed a clear idea about the organizational culture that affects

the style of leadership. Organizational culture is also responsible for

influencing the motivation that a leader can provide to followers. In order to

motivate employees, the leaders require a proper working environment and

culture. A proper working environment helps to keep the mind fresh and

drive them to achieve the goal in an organized way. A good leader always

works with all employees and efficiently discusses the problem. The

suggestions provided by the employees and other staff members to the

leaders are considered and analyzed in order to assess the effectiveness of

the suggestion. With the help of the suggestions given, the leaders try to

find the most effective one and conduct the decision-making process in order

to solve the issue. The working environment influences the leaders, as well

as the employees, and plays an important role in achieving the

organizational goal.

The degree to which organizational culture influences staff members’

commitment, the scenery of corporate ethnicity that exists in an organization

is going to choose the degree to which the preferred consequences from the

employees are obtained. The ordinary perception of the individual members

about the organization determines the types of organizational traditions,

individuals with the kingdom of worldwide truths and is large enough to

accommodate any diversity of circumstance. An organizational tradition

consists of two chief components: the most important value of the company

and the existing administration methods and systems.

These two mechanisms appreciably determine the degree to which the

preferred result from the staff is obtained. The value scheme that the

employees support directly, indirectly, or by their behavior indicates the way

in which organizations are likely to shift in the future. A powerful culture is

a powerful love for guiding behavior. It helps employees to do their jobs

better.

The essence of the organizational culture can be stated in its five

characteristics, namely:

Individual independence.

Organizational construction.

Reward organization.

Deliberation.

Conflict.

Organizational culture is concerned with how employees perceive

each of the five characteristics stated above, whether positive or negative.

An effective culture is a system of informal rules that spell out how

employees are behaving most of the time. It also enables people to feel

better about what they do, so that they are more likely to work harder. It

provides a sense of common direction and guidelines for day-to-day

behaviors.

The evaluation and its necessity have been derived because this may

help in discussing its efficiency in analyzing various concepts to manage it

significantly. The group leads to its efficiency because this focuses on

meaning as per its efficiency, and this has also been raised in order to

manage with its necessity, which has been derived. The basic requirement

and its facilities have been provided, as these are needed to research a better

way.

The characteristics of organizational culture and leadership styles

have the greatest influence on staff members’ commitment. Leadership is

not a motionless style that can fit all organizational cultures; a leader should

adapt his or her approach to fit a specific state of affairs—this is why a

leader should have a systematic understanding of lots of management

frameworks and styles. Including team members in the course of final

decisions, encouraging their creativity, and providing them confidence will

be supportive of a healthy organizational culture, and in employees having

high job desire and efficiency; this is why a self-governing style approach is

extremely recommended. Employees’ sense of association is usually

developed when the organization embraces the positive cluster norm. That

means to make staff show pledge, the organization’s mores should put some

positive orientations into practice to make high emotional and standardized

relation to their employees.

There is a connection between the transactional on transformational

leadership and organizational commitment (Bass & Avolio 1994; Burns,

1987). Transformational leaders can motivate followers and have the

capability to anticipate forthcoming challenges and, therefore, to proactively

arrange the required plans that will host the belief and the sense of poise to

their followers, which in turn will elevate the degree of commitment to the

company.

On the other hand, transactional leaders continually focus on their

affiliation with the employees as transactions (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Then,

transactional leadership is fundamentally comforting to both organizations’

and employees’ pleasure for short-term. Transactional leaders influence the

level of a vow for the organizational culture based on the reward that is

predictable by followers; transactional leaders always elucidate the role and

the tasks of their group, which also leads to higher efficiency. The

organizational culture and leadership provide a proper working environment

and training to employees to give their best while carrying out work. The

proper management and sense of power and confidence among employees

can only be gained through proper leadership management. The different

needs, aspirations, and its necessity can also be delivered from the linked

questions.

The degree to which direct leadership styles influence staff members’

commitment, the leadership, and its efficiency can be raised because these

are important to take decisions before any serious issue in the organization

takes place. The normal management system and its necessity can be

derived because the degree of making fewer mistakes has also been

considered.

The management system and its efficiency are necessary to focus on

because of their help in managing the work culture environment. The basic

necessity and its efficiency help in providing the requirement because of this

help in discussing certain criteria, which are needed to be managed

accordingly. Direct leadership refers to the concept that leaders are willing

to work with employees and other staff and help them to achieve the

organizational goal in a better way. According to the concept of leadership,

staff members get easily motivated and give their maximum effort in

achieving objectives. The requirement that can be achieved for dealing with

an indication that has been achieved with variety and is also managing with

factors that are needed to be achieved. The satisfaction level can be carried

out by employees with proper commitment. The commitment of employees

deals with achieving the best outcome that has been provided for managing

the symptoms. The efficiency has gained by expressing satisfaction and a

method of leadership that can help in providing proper satisfaction to

employees. The management of employees can be considered as one of the

effective ways to conduct the research procedure.

The role of reward and recognition of staff members’ commitment is

the key fact, for any company’s achievement is the ultimate efficiency of its

employees. Over the years, there has been a shift from a rigid, competitive

work atmosphere to a workplace where employee motivation and

engagement is a key area in the industry. With this change sweeping the

business world, organizations have started focusing on team construction.

The determination of organizations to civilize the mentor-mentee

association and, consequently, the level of engagement in employees has

surpassed that of their global counterparts. Despite such heartening figures,

workplace stress still exists at an unignorable level. Steady engagement

initiatives permit employees to be more relaxed and creative, which only

means good things for the company.

The standard approach to employee recognition is to recognize their

contribution at every level, but also recognize excellent work and show a

sense of power and confidence of initiative boosts to employee morale.

Reward employees by giving them memorabilia, like certificates, small

souvenirs, letters of appreciation, gift vouchers, and micro bonuses.

An employee who feels recognized in the company will work with

more devotion, passion, and ingenuity. There is also a higher probability of

the employee staying longer and handling conflict better. Positive

reinforcement makes clear what one can expect to receive. Employees feel

like integral components in the organizational machine and therefore,

contribute more much to their employer’s happiness.

Chapter 5 of the dissertation presents a discussion of the findings.

Moreover, the conclusion, recommendations, limitations, and implications of

the study will also be discussed. This chapter will offer the conclusions of

the study by taking evidence from the literature review and the primary

study conducted.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this quantitative research was to examine the

influence of organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’

commitment in a nonprofit organization serving children and families in

New York City. The overall study focused on the culture and leadership

policies required for the success of nonprofit organizations. The background

of the study dealt with the roles and responsibilities of leaders in achieving

organizational goals. The background has helped to determine how leaders

can motivate their employees to achieve the organizational goals. The

review of literature and analysis of the data collected from this research

study provided essential information on the influence of organizational

culture and leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’ commitment.

Interpretation of Findings

In order to get the maximum effort from followers, leaders need to

express behavioral characteristics that are optimistic. This promotes a

constructive, less antagonistic work environment, realistic measures that

strengthen the fundamentals of the organization, an open managerial support

for enhancing the internal and external surroundings of the organization, and

a highly functioning association in which tasks are delegated and workers

are allowed to decide the most efficient way to perform the tasks. Moreover,

the nature of study shed light on the relationship between the dependent and

independent variables. The nonprofit organization’s focused attention on

irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards in the

leadership styles help in promoting the development in the mission of the

organization in an appropriate way.

In the research, I sought to identify if the organization incorporated

culture and leadership. The leadership strategy has helped in dealing with

various aspects that have been considered effective ways to carry out the

research. The proper assessment has been conducted with various needs and

requirements that helped in focusing upon criteria that needed to be

considered. The outcome of leadership and effectiveness has been discussed

in order to make the concept and proper analysis in better ways. The

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which contains 45 behavioral

questions, measures independent variables of leadership. The Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire represents a broad range of leadership behaviors

to indicate three distinct leadership outcomes and nine hierarchical

leadership practices. The organizational culture has been conceptualized

and understood because it has been shared with the team members. Leaders

need to act as per the instructions of the behavioral model in order to get the

maximum effort from followers. Democratic leadership needs to be

incorporated in the working culture for the same. The leadership style helps

employees to achieve their basic necessity in order to provide the best

outcome. The objectives have helped in achieving the question, which is

needed for proper encouragement.

The findings from this research could help the leaders of the nonprofit

organization serving children and families to recognize the presence of

challenges and shape what actions might be supportive in improving the

management culture of the organization. The methodology is associated

with the data collection procedure. Depending on the efficacy and

competence of the data collected from the Internet, gathering data from the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Organizational Cultural

Assessment Instrument from the Internet was the best and most proficient

way. The automated process of gathering data made it the best way of

transferring the data into an Excel spreadsheet and downloading the data into

the SPSS spreadsheet. The first instrument, the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, was used to evaluate leadership styles. The management

system and its efficiency also needed to be carried out appropriately. The

data analysis was discussed with graphs, charts, and tables to represent the

data effectively. The data that have been gathered needed to be used

efficiently in order to maintain the flow of the research. The proper data

collection and its efficiency were measured because this was necessary for

analyzing the data. Based on the collected data, the flow of the research was

decided and driven towards achieving the objective.

The research findings showed that the staff members’ perceptions

regarding leadership styles (transformational and laissez-faire) had an effect

on their commitment to the nonprofit organization. Moreover, the staff

members’ perceptions of organizational culture had an effect on the level of

commitment of staff members to the organizational mission. Also,

organizational culture and leadership influenced staff members’

commitment. Therefore, leadership and culture affect staff commitment,

which in turn affects administration and policy making in nonprofit

organizations, which are public entities.

Organizational culture is concerned with how employees perceive

each of the five characteristics stated above, whether positive or negative.

An effective culture is a system of informal rules that spell out how

employees are behaving most of the time. It also enables people to feel

better about what they do, so they are more likely to work harder. It

provides a sense of common direction and guidelines for day-to-day

behaviors.

The evaluation and its necessity have been derived because this may

help in discussing its efficiency in analyzing various concepts to manage it

significantly. The group leads to its efficiency because this focuses on

meaning as per its efficiency and this has also been raised in order to

manage with its necessity, which has been derived. The basic requirement

and its facilities have been provided, as these are needed to research a better

way.

The characteristics of organizational culture and leadership styles

have the greatest influence on staff members’ commitment. Leadership is

not a motionless style that can fit all organizational culture; a leader should

adapt their approach to fit a specific state of affairs; this is why a leader

should have a systematic understanding of lots of management frameworks

and styles. Including team members in the course of final decisions,

encouraging their creativity, and providing them confidence will be

supportive of a healthy organizational culture and of having high job desire

and efficiency; this is why a self-governing approach is extremely

recommended. Employees’ sense of association is usually developed when

the organization embraces the positive cluster norm. That means to make

staffs show pledge, the organization’s mores should put into practice some

positive orientations to make high emotional and standardized relation to

their employees.

As the objective of this study was to use a considerable amount of

data and approaches that would show the correlation between organizational

culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment. Similarly, the

data collected through primary research showed a correlation between

organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment.

Leaders can use various approaches and styles to inspire their followers and

thereby advance the individual and organizational performance. The United

States contingencies on the nonprofit sector to execute public policy are

intended to help disadvantaged and vulnerable people. To accomplish this,

nonprofit organizations should retain dedicated employees to perform these

crucial services efficiently. The valuable contribution of this research relates

to the examination of another factor known to influence staff members’

commitment and organizational culture. This research used the theoretical

framework, as well as collected evidence of transformational leadership to

explore leadership, which is frequently applied to nonprofit organizations.

This research is unique because it examined the influence of both

organizational culture and leadership styles on staff members’ commitment.

Limitations of the Study

A key limitation of this research was in the completion of the surveys

by the Little Sisters of Assumption staff. This definitely ran a risk of

response bias due to the participants completing the surveys based on what

they thought was acceptable or more important. Participants had to create an

account in order to complete the Organizational Cultural Assessment and

then send the researcher the information to assess the results. In addition,

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was a lengthy questionnaire. The

process to complete both surveys could have affected the participants to

become less focused while completing the entire surveys.

Moreover, the sample size was one of the limitations of the study.

Due to the low rate of response, results cannot be generalized. To conduct

this study, 100 respondents were randomly selected; however, only 25

respondents were able to participate in the survey. After sending out written

informed consents forms and numerous emails reminding participants to

sign and return the informed consent forms, many participants were

excluded from the research for not completing and returning them. Based on

the participants who received the informed consent form and did not sign it,

the researcher was successful in obtaining only 25 signed informed consent

forms.

Initially, the plan was to recruit a research assistant to distribute the

instrument and thoroughly explain the rationale of the study to the

participants; however, the process to recruit, train, and supervise the research

assistant can be time consuming. Additionally, due to working with limited

resources, it would have been an additional expense, which was not feasible.

The research instruments were not one hundred percent accurate in

measuring the preferred variables in the research. Only employees of a

single nonprofit organization serving children in New York City were

eligible to participate. As such, findings of the study are not generalizable to

other locations, children and family nonprofit organizations, or nonprofit

organizations serving the needs of populations other than children and

families. Moreover, the lack of previous studies in this research area was

one of the limitations, as we know that the literature review is one of the

significant parts of research and helps in identifying the scope of work

conducted in previous studies.

Moreover, due to lack of findings in previous literature reviews, this study

went through a difficult phase while achieving the research objectives.

Recommendations

Practice

Organizational effectiveness is one of the practice areas for further

research. Retention of some of the best employees is a factor the majority of

nonprofit organizations are facing. Turnover is expensive, and workers are

the main resources that help organizations achieve their strategic objectives

and goals. Leaders should ensure that the organizational culture and

leadership styles that they employ are effective in enhancing the

commitment of employees who work for their organizations. The results of

this study are anchored on the significance of transformational leadership

and organizational culture on the outcomes of employees.

Leaders must establish an inspiring vision. The employees need a

convincing reason to follow the actions of their leaders, and that explains the

need to create and communicate an exciting vision of the future. The

leadership style or organizational culture employed must specify the

organization’s purpose and values.

Academic

The findings open avenues for further research into the issue being

studied. More research should be conducted to prove that transactional and

transformational leadership has a positive correlation with job success and

satisfaction. It is vital to conduct further research on the correlation between

turnover intention, effective commitment, and overall effectiveness on the

organizational outcomes, including client satisfaction, attained program

goals, and financial health. Some of the variables used in the research also

created possibilities for future research, especially in relation to age and

gender. Further research on this particular topic will add scholarly

knowledge and a better understanding regarding the influence of leadership

style and organizational culture on the commitment of employees to the

nonprofit organization.

There were some gaps in the knowledge around the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’

commitment that follow from my findings and would benefit from future

research, including real assessment to extend and further test the theories

developed in this study.

In-depth exploration is required regarding the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’

commitment. Moreover, research could explore the relationship between

organizational culture, staff members’ commitment, and leadership style in a

nonprofit organization, which could help future researchers to gain insight

into which leadership style can promote and develop leaders to inspire

followers to enhance organizational performance, meet the organization’s

mission, and fulfill the needs of the people it serves.

More methodological work is required to check the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’

commitment, including further economic analysis and exploration of the

impact when research partners are integral to research teams.

The literature review for this research revealed that limited research

had been performed on the influence of organizational culture and leadership

styles on nonprofit staff members’ commitment as they pertain to the

perception of employees. This research, which addressed employees’

perceptions of the leadership style and organizational culture that influence

the commitment of the staff members, used the quantitative research

method, which has the potential to result in comprehensive data that can

identify the major reasons and impact of the leadership style implemented by

leaders on the commitment of employees within the nonprofit organization.

Another area for future research is identifying whether the leadership

style that is actualized by the leader is capable of helping the leader to

encourage subordinates to work productively in the organization with a high

level of commitment. Implementation of the mixed research approach might

provide the best outcome for understanding the influence of organizational

culture and leadership style on the commitment level of the employees in the

nonprofit organization. It is because the mixed method approach is a

combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods that scholars or

researchers can abstractly and dispassionately interpret the collected data.

The use of a mixed method approach will empower scholars and

researchers to get the lived encounters of the research participants and

analyze the connection between the dependent and independent variables

with the help of statistical and numerical analysis. In addition, this will

enable the scholars or researchers to show the influence of leadership traits

and organizational culture on the commitment level of the employees.

Further research on this particular topic will add scholarly knowledge

and a better understanding regarding the influence of leadership style and

organizational culture on the commitment of employees in the nonprofit

organization. Moreover, future research can examine how leadership style

and organizational culture influence the commitment of employees to the

work in a nonprofit organization. Furthermore, future researchers have an

opportunity to understand the effect of organizational culture and leadership

style on employees within a nonprofit organization. This can be explored by

observing the productivity level of leaders, the capability of inspiring

employees by sharing the vision, and empowering other employees to

remain committed to their tasks and help the organization achieve its

objectives.

Implications

The findings of this research have extensive implications that are

important for the field of leadership. First, the research adds depth to the

knowledge of leadership in nonprofit organizations by explaining the

characteristics demonstrated by leaders in welldefined leadership roles.

Leadership training and development at all levels could improve the

organizational culture and staff members’ commitment. Leaders who want

to increase staff commitment should focus on individual consideration,

which is one of the desired characteristics of transformational leadership

identified by non-managerial staff. A transformational leader takes into

account the staff’s level of knowledge and talents when determining how to

motivate staff members to reach their highest level of accomplishment. In

addition, transformational leadership focuses on tackling the concerns and

needs of individual staff, rather than tackling the staff as a group. A leader

tends to praise individual staff members as a mean of incentive and openly

acknowledges their achievements.

The implication for social change will be achieved when leaders

begin to acknowledge their leadership styles and consider how their

leadership influences the commitment of their staff. Social change will be

attained when leaders are able to ascertain which leadership styles

positively influence the performance and commitment of their staff. Proper

communication with employees can also be considered one of the effective

ways because this has been raised to its efficiency. The communication

skills help in encouraging the employees, and leaders can understand the

demand of employees. Proper communication helps employees to know

about the value of an organization, which helps in achieving the goals of the

organization. Transparency with the employee is one of the key concepts,

because it helps build the proper relationship needed to be used effectively.

The outcomes of the research can be used as an educational tool for

individuals wanting to enhance and influence the leadership characteristics

of nonprofit leaders.

Areas for Future Research

This study contributes significantly to the literature on leading

nonprofit organizations by reviewing the roles that culture and leadership

style have with regard to the commitment of employees of these

organizations. However, there is a need to carry out more research on

several areas of this topic.

Specifically, it is critical to investigate the impact of culture and

leadership style on individual employees’ outcomes. For instance, future

research should explore the link between leadership, culture, and individual

characteristics of employees, such as creativity, job satisfaction, and

autonomy. It could establish whether organizational culture and leadership

styles influence individual employees in different ways.

It is notable that the research in this paper is based on a single

organization, which provides only a reasonable explanation of the link

between leadership, culture, and staff commitment. Even though there are

advantages of studying a single organization, it is unclear whether similar

results would arise from researching other nonprofits. Therefore, it is

critical for future research to consider several other organizations.

Preferably, future research should incorporate different nonprofits offering

various human services in various parts of the world.

Future research should also explore longitudinal and qualitative study

approaches to build more theory on the topic. More qualitative studies that

investigate leadership and organizational culture in the current environment

of rapid organizational change and their association with organizational

performance, as well as political behavior in nonprofit organizations can

address several of the limitations highlighted above. This approach to case

studies can assist researchers to evaluate dynamic relationships between

culture, leadership, and staff dedication more efficiently, thus resulting in

more defined outcomes.

Lastly, this study has focused on a few leadership styles and culture

types used by some nonprofits. Future investigations should consider

various leadership approaches and organizational cultures in order to acquire

a more comprehensive understanding of how various nonprofit organizations

use culture and leadership to influence the dedication and engagement of

their staff.

Conclusion

The research examined the influence of organizational culture and

leadership styles on staff members’ commitment in a nonprofit organization

serving children and families in New York City. The extent of a connection

between organizational culture, leadership style, and staff members’

commitment in a nonprofit organization provided insight into which

leadership styles to promote and how to develop leaders to inspire followers

and thereby improve organizational performance to meet the mission of the

organization and satisfy the needs of the people it serves.

The research focused on extending awareness of what leadership and

organizational culture involve and their connection to an employee

achieving the mission of a nonprofit organization serving children and

families, which could have a positive social change on the individuals who

benefit from the social services provided by the organization. By examining

how organizational culture and leadership styles connect to staff members’

commitment, nonprofit social organizations have better insight into which

leadership styles and organizational cultures are effective.

Leaders set the tone and direction for the people they manage. A

leader’s values, strategies, and experiences influence the leader’s leadership

style and organizational culture, which have an impact on staff commitment

outcomes. The findings of this study suggested that organizations should

invest more money in training and development of leaders at all levels,

which could improve organizational culture and staff members’

commitment. Implementation of strong policies also affects the way a

leader manages his or her employees. The leader may devote more time to

making sure followers adhere to policies than to motivating and growing

staff.

This research will help the future researchers to gain detailed

information about the content. The researcher can gain exact and updated

information from the research that can help in effectively analyzing the

research. The issues faced by the researcher will help future researchers to

avoid issues and will help them to gain good knowledge.

This research offers proper information related to the influence of

organizational culture and leadership styles on nonprofit staff members’

commitment, which will help future researchers to work accordingly.

Moreover, future researchers can gain detailed information and knowledge,

which can help in appropriately managing the limitations. Future

researchers can gain updated knowledge appropriately. This research will

help future researchers to gain information for the nonprofit organization

because the data collection helps researchers to analyze the issues.

Influence Of Organizational Culture and Leadership On Nonprofit

Students also viewed