The Relationship Between Leadership Styles And Call Center Workers Organizational Commitment

The Relationship Between Leadership Styles And

Call Center Workers Organizational Commitment

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

The call center industry is instrumental in servicing the consumer in

many facets of service-oriented presales and aftersales support (Clark et al.,

2019). In this research, I examined the relationship between leadership styles

and outcomes and call center workers’ organizational commitment. Gupta

and Beehr (1979) led some of the first empirical studies on the effects of

professional fulfillment and a leader's style on an employee. The leaders’

style and relationship with other employees can significantly affect the work

environment. The significance of this study is to demonstrate how leadership

styles may relate to call center workers. According to Slavin and Morrison

(2013), organizational employees displayed behavioral dissonance when

leadership styles changed. Furthermore, according to Lu and Gursoy (2016)

and Nath and Agrawal (2015), organizational commitment is related to

performance, attendance, and turnover. Lu and Gursoy and Nath and

Agrawal found that commitment was an emotional reaction to satisfaction.

The authors also found that if an individual is suitably managed, the level of

commitment leads to increased performance, productivity, and reduced

turnover. The study of relationships between leadership styles and outcomes

and call center workers' organizational commitment could provide an

interorganizational structure. Both the leader and associate can improve

employee-employer relations.

The relationship between leadership styles and organizational

commitment in a call center environment has not been adequately

researched. The research gap is the relationship between call center leaders'

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Their

relationship to call center workers' organizational commitment is unknown.

Nath and Agrawal (2015) studied job satisfaction, work-life balance,

supervisory support, the relationship between organizational culture and

worker performance, and turnover intentions. However, few studies have

addressed the relationship between call centers and leadership styles

(Babalola, 2016). Hence, additional studies are needed to examine how

different leadership styles influence call center workers’ organizational

commitment.

Addressing the gap can provide data for businesses looking to boost

their earnings, worldwide competitiveness, and employee-employer

relations. The social influence is to create positive social change by assisting

the employers with their communication skills concerning the employee-

employer relationship by recognizing and listening to their concerns. When

the employer recognizes the stressors, the results can foster decreased

turnover rates and improve profitability and productivity in the organization

(Sousa-Lima et al., 2013). In understanding the relationship between call

center workers and leadership styles, the results can help leaders understand

that their leadership style can contribute to the call center workers’

commitment when it comes to the workers’ organizational commitment.

This chapter presents the relationship between leadership styles and

call center workers' organizational commitment. This chapter includes the

background, the problem, the purpose, the research question and hypotheses,

the theoretical framework for transformational, transactional, and laissez-

faire leadership styles and outcomes, and organizational commitment. The

chapter also includes the full-range leadership and equity theories and

addresses the delimitations, assumptions, and limitations. The study's

significance addresses the implication of leadership styles on call center

workers regarding their organizational commitment.

Background of the Study

Leadership outcomes connected to workers' organizational

commitment have been associated with the transformational, transactional,

and laissez-faire leadership styles by Jyoti and Bhau (2015) and Shurbagi

and Zahari (2014). According to the researchers, positive leadership

engagement improved work satisfaction and organizational engagement

among subordinates. These articles provided the background for the study.

According to the articles, a relationship between leadership styles might

impact organizational commitment. The emphasis of this study was on call

center workers. Organizational leaders can benefit from understanding how

their interactions and connections impact workers' commitment (Zhang et

al., 2013). Chiaburu et al. (2014) meta-analytically examined that leaders’

influence matters, and leaders have the choice in selecting their style of

influence from transactional (contingent reward), transformational (change-

oriented), and leader-member exchange (relational) influencers. Chiaburu et

al. determined which leadership style has a more substantial effect on

workers' proactive behaviors, such as performance, attendance, and work

effectiveness, without significant losses regarding workers' contextual and

task performance. According to Choudhary et al., transformational leaders

had a greater impact on employees' organizational learning than servant

leaders. Because businesses want to maximize their revenues, they must

select leaders who can encourage particular employee behaviors. There are

many leadership styles, and having inefficient leadership skills, costs, on

average, 8% of human capital revenues in organizations (Human Capital

Benchmarking Report, 2016). Sonnino (2016) found that to be committed to

their employees' growth, leaders needed to incorporate their vision skillsets,

such as training and leadership development, increasing confidence, and

improving organizational performance. The relationship between intended

turnover and actual turnover rates in a federal government agency was

investigated by Cohen et al. in 2016. They found that individual and

organizational intention to quit and turnover are not statistically correlated.

According to Cohen et al. (2016), voluntary turnover was an

attitudinal construct, with variables such as supervisor disputes, lack of job

progression, or other job opportunities. Actual turnover findings were

measurable constructs, such as performances, lack thereof, or organizational

downsizing (Oh, 2019). However, further study was required on the

theoretical relationship between turnover intentions and actual turnover

rates. According to Dumdum et al. (2013), transformational leaders offer

tailored attention based on individual needs and characteristics and

encourage and motivate their teams to bring out the best in each employee.

In multiple meta-analysis investigations, Dumdum et al. used the multifactor

leadership questionnaire (MLQ) and the full-range leadership theory (FRLT)

model. The MLQ's findings assessed the connection between a leader's

effectiveness, output, and satisfaction within a given organization. In

addition, Ghani et al. (2018) examined the interactions between 113

employees at government-affiliated businesses across Malaysia who were

either transactional or transformational leaders. Ghani et al. concluded that

the engagement between the workers and the women who used transactional

and transformational leadership styles showed a positive relationship.

A leader’s attributes are open to interpretation by their followers

(Paunova, 2015). In the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Wells and

Welty Peacey (2011) examined a sample of 208 USA softball and volleyball

assistant coaches. Using the MLQ questionnaire form, the assistant coaches

assessed the leadership styles of their head coaches. A negative correlation

between transactional leadership and a positive correlation with a

transformational leadership style was seen in the outcomes' performance and

turnover intentions. Similarly, Rehman et al. (2012) demonstrated the

significance of the employee-leader connection inside a business.

Furthermore, 250 workers at a manufacturing business were the subject of

Yücel (2012)'s investigation on the relationships between organizational

commitment, job happiness, and desire to leave. The results demonstrated

that organizational commitment precedes job satisfaction in the workplace.

Metwally et al. (2014) demonstrated that transformational leadership's

four components (intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration,

inspirational motivation, and idealized influence) positively affected job

satisfaction. A sample study of 218 private and public employees in

Argentina completed a survey to examine the relationship between a

transformative leader and job satisfaction. The results indicated that if the

employee perceived their leader as meeting their needs and not their own,

their behavior and performance increased, which led to job satisfaction.

There were fulfilled, dedicated workers who chose to leave and dissatisfied,

conflicted employees who unfalteringly stayed on the job (Louis & Murphy,

2017; McHale, 2012). Different variables may weigh in on the choice to

remain or to leave, and these elements might be both business-related such

as leadership styles and individual preferences.

FRLT is an established management theory that integrates the three

classifications of leadership behavior, transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire leadership styles, and the outcomes of leadership (Antonakis &

House, 2013). The outcomes of leadership are the results of leadership

behavior (Bass & Avolio, 2000). The workforce is ever-changing and

becoming globally competitive. If managed effectively, employees can

become an organization's competitive advantage (Asrar-ul-Haq & Kuchinke,

2016). The evidence presented in the literature indicated that leadership

styles govern the outcome variables. FRLT deems leaders as participative if

they use effective leadership characteristics.

Effective leadership is vital in any organization due to high turnover

rates (Boles et al., 2012). Bass and Avolio (1997) stated that

transformational and transactional leadership styles are most effective

whenever leaders can motivate and stimulate the employees and the act of

change affects the workers’ behavior, with improved performances and self-

fulfillment. The FRLT has been approved by many to gauge the effect of

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles (Bass &

Avolio, 1997). However, researchers do not know how to classify which

leadership style must be used in specific settings. Researchers have indicated

that leadership styles are not all-encompassing due to cultural differences

and the environment (Bhagat & Steers, 2009). Therefore, there was a need

for this study because it can help leaders and organizations understand how

their workers relate to their leadership style and how it impacts

organizational commitment. The outcome can help leaders transform their

styles to improve the employee-employer relationship.

Problem Statement

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), the number of call

centers worldwide is expected to expand by 5% between 2016 and 2026.

Relationship difficulties will be faced by call center leadership teams,

necessitating the development of managerial solutions to keep their staff

members. The popular leadership philosophies of transformational and

transactional have received much examination in academic fields (Jyoti &

Bhau, 2015; Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Workplace stresses, interpersonal

interactions, training, learning opportunities, workload, compensation, work

environment, and leadership styles that employees were exposed to inside

their businesses were the main problems with employee satisfaction that

affected employee turnover and behaviors (Mamun et al., 2020).

Oslund’s research from 2018 revealed a significant rate of employee

turnover in call centers. According to Oslund, the Quality Assurance &

Training Connection reported that employee turnover in call centers ranged

from 30% to 45%. Depending on the employment level, Cappelli and Keller

(2013) found that turnover might cost a firm more than half of its yearly

compensation. The organization’s turnover and failures were initially due to

leadership, inadequate planning, pay, and policies (Joshi & Ratnesh, 2013).

Performance might suffer as a result of losing competent workers, and

training and replacement expenses would increase. Business experts are

aware of how different leadership philosophies affect employees'

productivity and financial performance (Calaguas, 2017).

When leaders fail to recognize workers' efforts, it promotes a negative

connotation and leaves the workers with a false sense of power (Johansson et

al., 2014). With ineffective appraisal systems and the same input and output

of job tasks, workers are dissatisfied and leave the organization or have poor

performance (Harhara et al., 2015). Additionally, the leadership styles the

call center workers are subjected to inside an organization, according to

Yousef (2017), can cause organizational commitment problems in the

workplace. The study's specific problem addresses how leadership styles

(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and the outcomes predict

call center workers' organizational commitment. Call centers are a growing

business and will continue to grow, and according to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (2018), the continued increase will be at least 5% between 2016

and 2026. Today, call center workers are tasked to deal with diverse

leadership styles along with the high pressure of the economy and the

pressure to perform at high levels (Jensen et al., 2013).

The disparity in the literature that has not been thoroughly addressed

is understanding how three common leadership styles, transformational,

transactional, laissez-faire, and leadership outcomes relate to employees'

organizational commitment in a call center atmosphere. Recognizing and

understanding the gap may be critical information for businesses seeking to

boost revenues and worldwide competitiveness. The social change result

could be improved employee-employer relations, employee development,

and participation in community-related initiatives. This study's findings may

aid in the contribution of enhancing problem-solving and critical-thinking

skills and other leadership problems in the workplace so that leaders can

achieve organizational goals.

Research Question and Hypotheses

One research question and the associated hypotheses guided the

overall study. The research question was analyzed and broken down with the

individual leadership styles and their relationship with the different types of

organizational commitments.

Research question (RQ): What is the relationship between leadership

styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and outcomes, as

measured by MLQ, and organizational commitment, as measured by OCQ,

of call center workers?

H0: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes do not predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

Ha: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes predict organizational commitment (affective, normative,

continuance) in call center workers.

Theoretical Framework

Both Burns (1978) and Bass (2013) proposed that leadership styles are

crucial in leader-follower interactions. Both have cited the transformational

leader paradigm, which says that great leaders provide chances for inclusive

learning and open dialogue (as cited in Long et al., 2014). Transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership theories, as well as the outcomes

of leadership, served as the theoretical foundation for this study.

Understanding these theories can help an organization's relationship between

the leaders and the workers. Bass stated that transformational leaders inspire,

motivate, encourage, provide feedback, and pursue the organization above

their personal needs. A transformational leader has a vision and leads with

their charismatic nature to inspire their employees to see their view, who are

risk-takers (Doucet et al., 2015).

Transformational leaders work with their team members to

accomplish the organization's goals and mission. Working with their team

members, transformational leaders enable their staff to accomplish the goals

and mission of the organization (Rouche et al., 1989; Tajasom et al., 2015).

Lastly, transformational leaders are enthusiastic with an optimistic view.

They are intellectually stimulating, making them capable of showing their

employees how to envision and conceptualize a problem and empowering

them to solve it autonomously (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Burns founded

the leadership theories in 1978.

According to Burns (1978) transactional leaders prioritize extrinsic

rewards and avoid unwarranted risks that affect employee-employer

relations. The argument that transactional leadership approaches lead to a

brief exchange of relationships between followers and leaders is made in the

following statement: "The attention is on the leader, not the follower” (Pohl

& Paillé, 2011, p. 155). Bass (1997) stated that a transactional leader waits

for calamities before proactively taking action. They have a quid pro quo

exchange for obtaining the goals they desire. Laissez-faire is the delegative

leadership style. Bass contended that laissez-faire is the lowest of the

leadership styles and the most ineffective because individuals can make

choices independently, and their leaders have a hands-off disposition (as

cited Bass, 2013). An effective leader-led scenario requires a variety of

leadership styles. However, the development of the people being led is also

an important consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1985).

The FRLT is an established management theory that symbolizes three

classifications of leadership behaviors: transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire leadership styles (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The FRLT is measured

by the MLQ instrument, which illustrates the nine distinct factors through

five transformational, three transactional, and one laissez-faire leadership

factors (Antonakis & House, 2013). The approach of FRLT provides details

on leadership in an extensive forum with the expectancy of positive

outcomes. FRLT focuses on followers' perceptions of leadership, motivation,

effectiveness, creativity, and non-transactional leaders (Anderson & Sun,

2017). FRLT perceives leaders as influential as long as they adopt the

effective styles of transformational and transactional leadership; the leader

who uses the laissez-faire leadership style or is passive was measured as

least effective, with workers' productivity and performances at an all-time

low (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Yahya & Ebrahim, 2016). Prior researchers have

examined the pertinence of FRLT and performance, attendance, and intent to

leave, but not specifically in the call center environment.

Equity theory in relation to employee organizational commitment is

associated with inputs (commitments, effort, loyalty, and reliability) and

outputs (recognition, pay, development, and security) because workers are

seeking a balance from both inputs and outputs, with an expectation of

satisfaction and not dissonance (Al-Zawahreh & Al-Madi,

2012). Workplace inequality can cause stress-related outcomes and decrease

work engagement, resulting in declining performances, absenteeism, and

workers' intent to leave an organization (Bakker et al., 2012). The equity

theory represents the relationship between inputs and outputs in trying to

store balance. The leadership styles also represent work boundaries and

depend on an organization's input and output balances (Bakker et al., 2012).

Organizational commitment is one essential component that makes an

organization successful (Azeez et al., 2016). Organizational commitment is

one of the top concepts in managerial literature that organizations use as a

guiding tool due to its significance regarding performance and effectiveness

(Nath & Agrawal, 2015). According to Tiwari and Singh (2016),

organizational commitment significantly affects performance, turnover,

productivity, and job satisfaction. According to Dvir et al. (2002), employee

job performance plays a vital role in transformational leadership;

subsequently, it is viewed as a significant framework for the effect of

organizational commitment on job performance through affective

commitment (Meyer et al., 2004). The entire organization performs

substantially better when workers are committed, leading to fewer turnovers

and absenteeism (Tarigan & Ariani, 2015). Organizational commitment

specifies that an individual should have a stable attitude based on the

emotional responses an individual has toward the organization (Nath &

Agrawal, 2015). Committed employees build relationships with customers

and other employees because of job satisfaction and trust in their

management (Yang & Hwang, 2014). Meyer and Allen (1991) developed

three components of organizational commitment: affective, continuance, and

normative. They defined affective commitment as a “want to” be inside an

organization. They defined continuance commitment as a “need to” be inside

an organization. Lastly, they defined normative commitment as “ought to”

be inside an organization. The researchers linked these components to an

organization's effectiveness, performance, and productivity to help plan and

develop management (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Job performance is an individual's behavioral action within an

organization completed within a predetermined timeframe (Motowidlo &

Kell, 2012). Job performance is crucial to the company's success in a call

center setting. Since job performance is a behavior that requires a clear

understanding of the job, the organization's executives are accountable for

defining those duties (Motowidlo & Kell, 2012). To maintain a respectable

organizational performance level, leaders must assess their leadership

philosophies (Wong et al., 2013). As a result, employees must be present at

their assigned office and be responsible for their actions.

Additionally, attendance defines the number of individuals present on

a specific day in an organization (Steers & Rhodes, 1978). Attendance is

vital in any organization, but especially in a call center environment that

serves consumers and businesses. Continued work attendance is a

commitment; without the proper structure, attendance can cause an

organization financial hardship (Cocker et al., 2012). Intent to leave is

having the desire to leave and search for other employment but not leave the

current employer (Lu & Gursoy, 2016). Intent to leave has been speculated

to be caused by job dissatisfaction, organizational commitment, and

leadership styles (Abouraia & Othman, 2017). More specifically, call center

workers have been inclined to leave due to leadership, career opportunities,

long hours, compensation, job dissatisfaction, and excessive work (Park &

Shaw, 2013).

Nature of the Study

In this quantitative, nonexperimental, correlational study, I used

multiple regressions to examine whether transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire leadership styles and outcomes related to call center workers’

organizational commitment. There are four quantitative research designs:

correlational, quasiexperimental, descriptive, and experimental (Pearl et al.,

2014). Due to no manipulations, observation, control, or recording of the

research, quasi-experimental, descriptive, and experimental were not

appropriate for this study. Farrelly (2013) defined correlation as a connection

between two or more variables. Therefore, for this study, a correlational

design was used. The predictor variables were transactional,

transformational, and laissez-faire styles and leadership outcomes. The MLQ

evaluated how the participants perceived their leaders’ leadership styles (see

Bass & Avolio, 2000). The outcome variable of this study was

organizational commitment. The organizational commitment questionnaire

(OCQ) helps measure an employee's level of commitment to the

organization, which is a critical factor for performance. The OCQ focuses on

identifying the behavioral perspective of moral, calculative, continuance,

affective, and normative commitment scales (Kanning & Hill, 2013). I used

SurveyMonkey, a third-party source, to gather the data, and call center

workers were sent email submissions of the MLQ and OCQ questionnaires.

The MLQ tools were given by MindGarden Inc., and an appropriate license

for the OCQ was secured.

Definition of Terms

Affective commitment: Affection for your job, “the individual’s

identification with and involvement in the organization. Employees’ work

and organizational experiences relate strongly and consistently to desired

work outcomes and organizational behaviors” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.65).

Continuance commitment: In fear of loss, the worker weighs the pros

and cons of leaving an organization; the individual stays because they have

to do so (Meyer et al., 2002).

Laissez-faire leadership: A laissez-faire leader does not make

decisions. They are reluctant and do not provide feedback to their

employees. A standoff type of leader that avoids all conflict (Abouraia &

Othman, 2017).

Leadership: With robust literature and research on leadership over a

long period, many definitions exist from different scholars. As a result of the

numerous definitions of leadership, there lacks a universally accepted

definition (Abasilim et al., 2019). However, many scholars have asserted

that leadership integrates aspects of the group context, influence, process,

and goal attainment (Hopkins & Scott, 2016). Researchers and scholars have

established these four components as the main pillars that the evaluation of

leadership practices tends to associate with to determine the effectiveness

and establish the best leadership practices (Hopkins & Scott, 2016).

Leadership styles: Leadership styles vary by organization and

situation. Leadership styles are an approach that motivates workers

(Jain et al., 2022).

Normative commitment: Obligation to stay; the employee feels

compelled to remain with the company (Meyer et al., 2002).

Organizational commitment: Organizational commitment is defined as

having a high level of respect for an organization. The worker values their

role has similar goals and is loyal to their workplace. The worker feels

satisfied and has a no turnover intention (Azeez et al., 2016).

Transactional leadership: Transactional leaders “emphasize extrinsic

rewards and avoid unnecessary risks, which impact employee-employer

relations; the focus is on the leader and follower and contends that

transactional leadership practices cause a shortterm relationship exchange by

followers to leaders” (Smith et al., 2016, p. 95).

Transformational leadership: Transformational leaders motivate,

encourage, provide feedback, and pursue to put the organization above their

personal needs. A transformational leader has a vision and leads with their

charismatic nature to inspire their employees to see their vision (Doucet et

al., 2015).

Assumptions

I assumed that all participants would provide truthful, honest feedback

to the survey. The participants were ensured privacy and anonymity and

were told they could opt-out anytime. All data were safely secured

throughout the study. I also assumed that the test instruments were reliable

and valid. Lastly, I assumed that all call center workers understood what was

being asked of them regarding the survey. The reasoning behind the survey

was to get to the core of the research problem.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope of the study involved call center workers. This study's

inclusion criteria were adults working inside a call center environment

reporting to a manager. The participants have been between the ages of 18

and 65. The participants were domestically located. Race, gender, or marital

status were not factors but were part of the demographics. A third-party data

collecting company named SurveyMonkey conducted the online survey to

the participants in the call center environment. The quantitative methodology

employed a nonprobability convenience sampling procedure to carefully

select the required sample of call center agents using a data collection

agency. The scale of measurement was interval. The sample size was

computed using the G*Power 3.1.9.7 statistical power analysis program. The

G*Power software calculated the sample size for multiple regression with a

significance level of .05 and with a desired statistical power level of .95,

where the number of predictors was equal to 9, and the anticipated effect

size was 0.15, with a calculated sample size of 166 (see Faul et al., 2009).

Multiple regression was appropriate for the outcome variable and, in this

case, organizational commitment using the statistical packages for social

sciences software (SPSS). The call center employee measured their

managers’ transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire leadership

behavior in each of the following dimensions: idealized influence-attributes,

idealized influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-

by-exception, passive/avoidant behaviors, and management-by-exception:

passive (see Bass & Avolio, 2000).

Limitations

Several limitations were associated with this study. I aimed to

determine whether the factors of leadership styles related to organizational

commitment in a call center environment. The sample was collected from an

external data collection company SurveyMonkey; therefore, some call center

workers may have had sociodemographic biases and may have decided to

withdraw. Based on outside influences on their immediate leader, the sample

could not be large enough. The collected data for this study came from

SurveyMonkey, an external data collection company using only domestic

participants; this might limit the findings' generalizability. Another

limitation was more women than men respondents; thus, there was a possible

gender bias in responses. The call center workers were evaluating their

manager; there may have been some answers that were not truthful, which

could have hindered the study's data. Moreover, the participant's emotional

state of mind could have been problematic when doing the survey. The

predisposition of their mindset could have caused them to complete the

survey differently depending upon specific incidents.

Significance

Organizational leaders may use the research results to improve their

workers' commitment to the organization. Studies on call center behaviors

regarding organizational commitment in the workplace have not been

thoroughly discussed or understood within the leadership literature.

Leadership is essential in any organization (McCleskey, 2014). There is a

need to know whether a relationship exists between leadership styles and

organizational commitment among call center workers. It may be possible to

determine if the leadership styles predict the call centers employees' conduct

regarding organizational commitment. Many researchers have viewed poor

leadership as one of the main reasons for employee churn (DeTienne et al.,

2012). Therefore, training sessions are essential for enhancing organizational

and leadership skills (Sageer et al., 2012).

This research can also be used to improve employee-employer

relations. This outcome can produce potential positive social changes. The

social change contribution would be to better understand how call center

workers perceive leadership styles, contribute to community-related

programs, improve employee-employer relations, decrease retention, and

improve profitability and productivity (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013). The

research results can also assist leaders in understanding that their leadership

styles can contribute to the commitment of the call center worker when it

comes to the worker's organizational commitment. Moreover, the survey

results can promote awareness to those transformational and transactional

leaders regarding their structure, making them more aware of self-behaviors

and showing them how to better interact with employees. Suppose the

findings of the results are indifferent. In that case, the results suggested the

need for leadership education and call center management training, which

could promote a more stable organizational commitment with better

performance and less desire to leave the organization. A leader's

responsibility is to share, lead, and provide a model that influences an

organization's commitment (Chang, 2014).

Furthermore, it is expected that no matter what the findings are

regarding the correlations, the study provides scientific knowledge by

providing a sample population of call center workers to study the

relationship between leadership styles on the variables specified. The

research is also expected to provide call center leaders a preview of their

leadership style and possibly develop and bring more awareness to

themselves. The results from the study contribute to the fields of industrial

organization and psychology to further the study of problem-solving, critical

thinking, leadership styles, and other problems in the workplace.

Summary

Research has indicated that call center turnover is high in today’s

workplace (Oslund, 2018). Exploring call center turnover numbers (2015)

gauged call center turnover between 30% and 45%. Additionally, in this

chapter, I discussed the study's principal components, beginning with the

background of several researchers examining the leadership styles in

different variations. I provided different sides and outcomes of why

organizations have performance, attendance, and organizational commitment

fears (see Ariani, 2013). The problem statement explained the general

problem of leadership styles and their effect on call center workers. I also

discussed the literature gap and the social implications of improving the

employee-employer relationship. The MLQ and OCQ questionnaire were

used to collect and analyze the data using the SPSS software. Multiple

regression was used to examine statistically if leadership styles were

correlated to organizational commitment and test the hypotheses. The level

of significance to interpret the results was set at .05.

Lastly, I discussed the purpose of the study, the RQ, the theoretical

framework, the nature of the study, the definition of terms, and the study's

assumptions. The scope and delimitations, limitations of the study, and

significance of the study were all summarized as related to the leadership

styles and the call center workers' organizational commitment in a call center

organization. Therefore, in Chapter 2, I summarize the current literature and

theories supporting the problem statement.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), worldwide call

center growth will increase by 5% between 2016 and 2026. Call center

management will confront relational issues that will need the development of

managerial solutions to retain their staff. Adopting different leadership styles

notably affects the various components of organizational practices (Annakis

et al., 2011). The purpose of this quantitative predictive nonexperimental

study was to examine and investigate the relationship between leadership

styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and outcomes of

leadership and call center workers’ organizational commitment. The general

problem with employee satisfaction affecting employee turnover and

behaviors were workplace stresses, interpersonal interactions, training,

learning opportunities, workload, compensation, work environment, and

leadership styles (Mamun et al., 2022). A need exists to improve leadership

styles and their effect on call center workers. Therefore, this study provides

detailed results on understanding the relationship between call center

workers’ and leadership styles. The results can help leaders understand that

their leadership style can contribute to the call center workers’ commitment

to the workers’ organizational commitment.

The number of existing studies investigating the implications of

different leadership styles on organizational behavior and commitment is

rapidly rising due to the corresponding rapid changes in employees'

organizational practices. The literature review integrates an analytical review

of existing literature on the topic and its various thematic concerns. An

overview of the chapter's content begins with a summary of the strategies

used to search for the literature, followed by a comprehensive theoretical

framework review of the theories that guided this study. A brief section on

the concept of leadership follows, and later the discussion on the nature of

work and leadership in call centers is discussed. The chapter also covers a

comprehensive analysis of organizational commitment and its relationship

with constructs of job satisfaction, employee performance, organizational

attendance, and intent to leave. This analysis is followed by how the three

leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) are

related to organizational commitment and a chapter summary.

Literature Search Strategy

This study used a comprehensive, analytical, and critical review of

existing literature on the subject matter to expand the emerging thematic

concerns on the topic. I integrated different primary research sources, in

which the scholarly electronic databases provided the means to obtain

literature. The sources for this literature review were obtained from the

following databases: Walden University Library EBSCOHost search tools

and Thoreau’s advanced, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ProQuest, Google

Scholar, Emerald Insight, ERIC, and Current scholarly literature and

sources. Many sources used in this study were within the last 5 years.

However, for an analytical analysis of how the theoretical foundations of the

study have changed, the study also included a few sources outside the last 5

years.

The keywords used in the search included the following: leadership,

leadership styles, leadership in call centers, organizational commitment,

affective commitment, normative commitment, continuance commitment,

leadership styles and organizational commitment, transformational

leadership and organizational commitment, transactional leadership and

organizational commitment, laissez-faire leadership and organizational

commitment, transformational leadership and employees’ performance,

transactional leadership and employees’ performance, laissez-faire

leadership and employees’ performance, laissez-faire leadership and

employee’s intent to leave, laissez-faire leadership and employee’s

attendance, transformational leadership and employee’s intent to leave,

transformational leadership and employee’s attendance, transactional

leadership and employee’s intent to leave, and transactional leadership and

attendance.

Theoretical Foundation

Leadership

The concept of leadership is one of the most researched organizational

behaviors (Antonakis & House, 2013; Raja & Palanichamy, 2011). Many

research studies investigating the various components, paradigms, styles,

and leadership models base their arguments on leadership's essence in

facilitating organizational performance efficiency (Asrar-ul-Haq &

Kuchinke, 2016). Leadership is a primary component of any organization

and is crucial in shaping internal and external organizational relations.

Through leadership, companies and organizations align their practices in a

specific model that shapes their corporate culture and image (Baumgartner,

2020). Therefore, leadership becomes a fundamental and critical component

in understanding the various organizational practices and how they shape

those organizations' performance (Abasilim et al., 2019). Due to the

progressive changes experienced in multiple organizational and business

practice environments, the concept of leadership continues to undergo

changes aiming at providing effective leadership practices that align with the

existing business and organizational practices (Alonderiene & Majauskaite,

2016). Therefore, leaders are the primary determinants of organizational

behaviors as they engage in high-level decision-making, manage workforce

activities, and establish the necessary workforce environment (Skakon et al.,

2010).

The concept of leadership is vital because the characteristics of

leadership practices in an organization are the foundation for determining the

corporate or organizational image and culture. Leadership practice should

reflect an alignment between organizational behavior and the expected

outcomes, such as setting goals, mission, vision, and objectives (Hopkins &

Scott, 2016). Research has shown that leadership establishes the overall

workplace mood and shapes employees' perceptions of their responsibility

and how to achieve corporate goals (Chandra, 2016). Leadership

commitment is thus directly proportional to employees' commitment to

organizational goals. Therefore, by leading people, managing resources, and

initiating decision-making processes in organizations, leaders pursue results,

motivate the workforce, empower the employees, serve others, and create an

environment where others can efficiently pursue the organization-centric

objectives (Clinebell et al., 2013). Leaders utilize their organizational

positioning to influence performance and facilitate realizing corporate goals

and objectives (Chandra, 2016).

Transformational Leadership Theory

The transformational leadership theory is a leadership model that Bass

et al. (1987) identified as a three-factored behavior process that integrates

the core aspects of individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and

charisma. Individualized consideration involves a leader who focuses on the

employees' performance, competence, and abilities at an individual level,

giving personal attention to members in the organizational environment who

may feel neglected and providing learning opportunities to all employees for

improved performance (Bass et al., 1987). The concept of individualized

consideration indicates that a leader who treats all employees equally puts

the needs of each employee into consideration regardless of their subordinate

position in the organization. This transformational leadership attribute

emerges in modern studies on the transformational leader (Sayadi, 2016;

Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016; Yammarino, 2013). Many scholars identify

transformational leadership as a practice that integrates improved concern

for individual employee participation, integration of training, educational

resources, and advanced employee-leader relationships (Zhang et al., 2013).

The second attribute associated with transformational leadership

theory is intellectual stimulation, which Bass et al. (1987) highlighted by

developing a multi perspective approach to the organization's issues. Bass et

al. (2013) indicated that intellectual stimulation consists of the leader starting

an organizational practice that questions the firm's existing practices, thus

giving employees the ability to approach their activities differently. The

result is the improvement of problem-solving in an organization, where

employees can critically evaluate the approaches and consequences of the

organizational practice (Eliyana et al., 2019; Sayadi, 2016). This leadership

approach enhances self-fulfillment among employees by empowering them

with problem-solving skills (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016).

Transformational leadership's charisma establishes a leadership trait

that makes the employees or followers trust their leader, emulate their

practices, and instill faith in the organizational workforce (Sayadi, 2016).

The organizational workforce considers their leader a role model, someone

who can identify the essential things and instill a sense of purpose towards

organizational goals and milestones in the workforce (Sayadi, 2016).

Further, Furtner et al., (2013) proposed that applying transformational

leadership theory in organizational practice improves the development of a

positive attitude towards the organization, organizational citizenship, and

organizational commitment in the workforce.

Transactional Leadership Theory

Transactional leadership theory suggests exchanging between

employees and the leader (Sayadi, 2016). According to the study by Bass et

al. (1987), this form of leadership proposes a type of agreement between the

leader and the employees where employees work and become awarded.

Therefore, the transactional leadership model integrates two crucial factors:

conditional reward and active-management-by-exception. The conditional

reward factor demonstrates a leader creating various tasks accompanied by

the rewards achieved on completion (Bass et al., 1987; Sayadi, 2016).

Therefore, the leader sets long-term and short-term targets, and the

employees obtain rewards for achieving them (Sayadi, 2016; Yahaya &

Ebrahim, 2016). On the other hand, the activemanagement-by-exception

factor defines a leader who focuses on the timely and effective completion of

the tasks as planned (Bass et al., 1987). Therefore, the transactional leader

regularly monitors the employee’s performance to provide guidance and

ensure that employees do not deviate from the path of task completion

(Sayadi, 2016).

Laissez-Faire Leadership Theories

This leadership framework also refers to the absence of a leadership

model where the leadership practices are passive and do not contribute to the

organization's managerial roles (Antonakis et al., 2003). According to

Yahaya and Ebrahim (2016), the laissez-faire leadership theory presents a

leadership practice that avoids decision-making, does not engage in follow-

up activities, disregards challenges and problems arising in the workforce,

and does not engage or intervene in any circumstance. This leadership

theory's main attributes include the undersupply of employee development

activities, the absence of rewards, feedback, instructions, supervision, and

leader involvement in organizational practices (Sayadi, 2016; Yahaya &

Ebrahim, 2016). Therefore, laissezfaire leaders are nonparticipants and

passive in the organizational environment. Despite holding leadership

positions that provide direction and guidance, laissez-faire leaders

completely abdicate responsibility and do not utilize the authority associated

with their positions (Antonakis et al., 2003).

Outcomes of Leadership

The outcome of leadership is nothing but the result of leadership style.

It could be the team's growth, loyalty, retention, or satisfaction. In the MLQ

model, Bass et al. (1983) mentioned three primary outcomes of leadership:

effectiveness, extra effort, and satisfaction. Effectiveness means the leader

effectively maintains their subordinates’ jobrelated requirements and

efficiently represents them and their work to the upper management. Extra

effort is when the leader motivates the subordinates and increases their

willingness to work harder and achieve more. Satisfaction means leadership

ways that empower the subordinate's job satisfaction. All these three

outcomes result from active leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

Organizational Commitment

The studies by Allen and Meyer (1990) and Meyer and Allen (1991)

significantly developed the concept of organizational commitment despite

the vast literature on this vital thematic concern in organizational practice.

Organizational commitment refers to the development of a psychological

state that shapes the relationship between the employees and the

organization to the extent that the employees feel obligated towards

improved performance of the organization (Sageer et al., 2012). It does not

develop an intent to leave the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Allen

and Meyer (1990) identified three foundational forms that organizational

commitment could take in the workforce. These three components of

organizational commitment include affective, continuance, and normative

commitment.

Affective commitment refers to developing an attitudinal relationship

with an organization, where the employee develops an emotional attachment

that binds them to stay in the organization (Powell & Meyer, 2004).

Affective commitment is associated with four major characteristics: work

experiences, job-related characteristics, personal characteristics, and

structural characteristics. Allen and Meyer (1991) indicated that the personal

characteristics that shape the employee’s commitment to work include their

need for autonomy, achievement and affiliation, personal work ethic, main

individual interests in work, and control. Structural characteristics refer to

the organizational structure that integrates the leadership and management

models applied in an organization (Powell & Meyer, 2004). The job

characteristics and work experiences integrate the organizational values,

mission and vision, and strategic organizational objectives (Abou Hashish,

2017). Collectively, these aspects contribute to shaping the employee's

attitudinal alignment with the organization, which defines their commitment

to work, leading to better performance (Dvir et al., 2002).

Continuance commitment refers to a case where the costs of leaving

influence an employee's stay in an organization. Therefore, employees

continue to commit to the organizational goals because they feel they are

benefiting by staying and would incur losses if they leave (Powell & Meyer,

2004). The various factors that lead to the development of continuance

commitment include expectations of others, selfpresentation concerns,

impersonal bureaucratic arrangements, individual adjustment, nonwork

concerns, lack of alternatives, and satisfying conditions (Powell & Meyer,

2004; Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). The normative commitment integrates the

concepts of moral responsibility and indebted obligation. Therefore,

employees develop a desire to remain in their workplace because they

perceive it as the right and honorable thing to do (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016).

Normative commitment is the foundation for employee loyalty, as

employees feel that the organizations expect them to develop loyalty.

Full Range Leadership

The full-range leadership concept emerged from Bass (1985), which

proposed that organizational leadership does not adopt transformational,

transactional, or laissezfaire leadership theories but integrates various

aspects of the three leadership styles. Bass et al. (2003), through revisions of

the original model, established nine factors that depict the practice of the

FRLT in organizational practice, including the following: “idealized

influence behavior, idealized influence attribution, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward,

active management- by- exception, passive management- by- exception, and

laissez-faire” (as cited in Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016, p. 191). The three

leadership theories are the foundation used to develop the nine-factor model

of the full-range theory. Bass et al. argued that the FRLT depicts the

different situations in which leaders develop context-based practices without

aligning with the three leadership styles.

Equity Theory Concerning Employee Performance, Attendance, and

Intent to Leave

Griffith and Gaertner (2001) equity theory refers to an employee

weighing the ratio of their input and output in an organization and

comparing them to another person. If employees feel inequity, they become

dissatisfied with their jobs and develop a feeling of inequity in the

organization. The organization's inequalities are the employee developing

new habits that affect performance, attendance, and intent to leave (Power &

Meyer, 2004).

Nature of Work in Call Centers

The literature and research on call centers are rapidly growing, with

leadership, employee relations, work environment, and customer satisfaction

becoming the central aspect of this developing field (Batt et al., 2009). With

the growing need for customer service availability 24/7, many organizations

continue to improve their call centers to develop service availability to

customers for improved performance. The nature and dynamics of work in

call centers have significantly changed to pursue customer satisfaction and

retention (Clark et al., 2019). Call centers focus on problem-solving and

helping customers achieve the maximum potential of an organization's

products and services.

One of the growing aspects of interest in call center research is

employee job satisfaction and commitment toward achieving an established

customer-oriented strategy (Hopkins & Scott, 2016). The call center workers

act as the company ambassadors to the customers; therefore, customer

satisfaction is vital for high performance (Zapf et al., 2003). There are

numerous methods used to measure performance. The quality of metrics

used to measure performance is more significant than the employed. The

organization’s primary objective is customer satisfaction (Meyer et al.,

2013). According to De-Ruyter et al. (2001), employee satisfaction is

integral to ensuring customer satisfaction. Therefore, the workers’ job

significantly shapes customer satisfaction with the organization's products or

services. Call centers have emotionally demanding work that requires

employees to maximize the number of calls they receive to ensure service

delivery to customers is high at any particular moment (Clark et al., 2019).

In many call centers, the employees must cope with intense working

conditions with minimal personal development from work in compensation

and skills development.

Different workplaces have unique environments that require specific

input from leadership, workers, and customers to ensure the organization

achieves its goals. Call centers are among the most intense work

environments, and for effectiveness, delivery of services to the customers

requires competent and dynamic leadership skills as the primary facilitator

(Hopkins & Scott, 2016). A study by Garcia et al. (2014) established that the

main reason why call center workers work under very high pressure is the

essence and significance of time in their organizations. The study indicated

that call centers’ must be well managed. As a result, the work design might

imply unfavorable work conditions for employees if not effectively managed

by the leaders (Garcia et al., 2014). Despite recent studies demonstrating

improved working conditions in call centers, many studies align their

approaches towards the employees' burnout, emotional well-being, and stress

(Hauptfleisch & Uys, 2006). In a call center environment, work pressure

leads the employees to focus solely on customer services, providing

solutions to the customers, leaving minimal time for employees’ well-being,

socialization with colleagues, and building skills and competence (Goodwin

et al., 2011). The findings indicate that many call centers face the challenge

of encountering underproductivity among employees due to their use of a

customer-oriented work approach and having minimal employee

empowerment programs (Hauptfleisch & Uys, 2006).

Garcia et al. (2014) indicated that, in most cases, a negative

relationship exists between work performance and a conducive work

environment in call center organizations. The study by Hauptfleisch and Uys

(2006) identified that most call centers establish cost-effective measures by

focusing on effective customer services by reducing the time taken to serve

each customer. Consequently, these organizations often forget about their

employees' well-being, failing to develop concepts such as work variety,

employee autonomy, and supportive management and HR practices (Akanji,

2013). The challenges workers in call centers experience develop from the

priority given to customer services and the need to optimize the time used to

serve as many customers as possible (Batt et al., 2009). The result of

adopting such an approach in an organization is a poor workplace

environment that does not promote employee development and well-being.

Leadership in Call Centers

The management and leadership in call centers play a central role in

ensuring that the organizational workforce is satisfied and able to achieve the

customer satisfaction objective. Since the call center’s role is customer

satisfaction and retention are crucial, it is equally essential to ensure

effective leadership and management practices. However, many research

studies demonstrate that there is still a wide gap between the existing

literature on effective leadership and its practice in call centers (Oodith &

Parumasur, 2014). The study by Garcia et al. (2014) highlighted that the

main challenges facing employee efficiency in call centers emanate from a

lack of effective leadership and management practices leading to the lack of

an empowering work environment for workers in call centers. Many

researchers, including Hopkins and Scott (2016) and Garcia et al. (2014),

cited the ability to establish competent leadership practices in call centers as

the breakthrough solution to the workplace environment challenges facing

call centers.

Many management issues facing the effectiveness of the various call

centers exist and lead to a poor work environment that does not promote

employee development. A study by Muthuveloo et al. (2014) indicated that

the main reason the leadership and management practices fail in most call

centers is that call centers are considered divisions of the primary

organization and do not have full leadership autonomy; the decisions are

limited. Managers in call centers experience difficulties in implementing

most workplace environment decisions because the organization's senior

management conducts crucial components such as the allocation of resources

(Joo et al., 2015). In such a case, the management of the call centers is not

autonomous and is limited. Thus, the primary organization's leadership is

responsible for ensuring that there is an allocation of adequate resources to

the call center division to facilitate the efficient delivery of services to

customers. Another approach involves giving the call centers full leadership

and management autonomy in making decisions that affect employee

performance in the department (Hauptfleisch & Uys, 2006). The leadership

method should consequently lead to a position where the decisions

concerning the workplace environment in the call centers come from the

division's management.

The existing literature on the nature of work in call centers will be

essential in facilitating the development of a solid background on how

leadership relates to call centers’ organizational commitment. By analyzing

the literature on the nature of work in call centers, the study presents more

insights into various determinants of commitment and how leadership can

address them. The multiple recommendations from different researchers are

also identified, providing more support to the current study. The literature on

the leaders in call centers presented leads to identifying areas to focus on in

current research.

Organizational Commitment

With the progressive development of organizational behavior in

research, organizational commitment is increasingly becoming a popular

concept in both organizational research and practice (Clinebell et al., 2013;

Eliyana et al., 2019). The current organizational research wave reflects an

increased interest in employees' practices and their relationship with the

workplace (Clinebell et al., 2013). Organizations are increasingly

implementing efficient organizational behavior practices due to the increase

in the benefits discovered through research, as well as the view of

organizational behavior as a competitive advantage factor (Bučiūnienė &

Škudienė, 2008). Organizational behavior has gained popularity in practice

and research due to its effect on employee behavior. The increased

implementation of organizational culture reflects its association with positive

organizational outcomes. According to a study by Cetin et al. (2015),

organizational commitment is goal-oriented and is essential in establishing

customer-focused practices and an employee-friendly workplace

environment. Organizational friendliness is thus a critical component that the

organization's leadership and management seek to pursue, aiming at

promoting work culture and customer satisfaction.

Pohl and Paillé (2011) established that organizational commitment is

multifaceted and integrates concepts of normative, affective, and

continuative commitment. All commitment is not equal; therefore,

employees may encounter different situations, develop relationships, and

experience a work environment that creates an emotional attachment to their

work. The development of such an attitude towards work creates

determination and intrinsic motivation for employees, which maximizes

responsibility (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Employee commitment exhibits itself

among employees through their efforts to complete given tasks, developing a

self-driven approach, and engaging in individual levels of problem-solving

(Eliyana et al., 2019). This approach of commitment in which employees

develop an emotional connection with the organization refers to the affective

form of organizational commitment (Fridoon & Nasrin, 2009). There are

employees whose reason for commitment to their roles and responsibility are

the costs associated with leaving the organization. The employees value the

benefits of their work's continuity and thus tend to commit to their

responsibilities (Allen & Meyer, 1990). This approach refers to the

continuative or continuance commitment where the employees value the

benefits they get by working in an organization, establishing their

relationship with work based on continuity over the risks of leaving their job

(Fridoon & Nasrin, 2009). The last dimension of commitment reflects the

feeling of duty and obligation towards the organization in which employees

believe it is upon their contribution that the organization continues (Allen &

Meyer, 1990).

The different forms of achieving organizational commitment

demonstrate how an organization's leadership and management can create

diverse approaches to maximize the attainment of commitment among

employees. The management of an organization can develop commitment

among employees, according to Nazir and Islam (2017), by promoting

positive experiences among the employees. An organization can foster

commitment in the workforce by establishing an environment where

employees feel the value of their skills and cultivating an appreciation of

human nature. Moreover, Mueller and Straatmann (2014) indicated that

adopting the horizontal and vertical coordination of shared organizational

goals and the communication model leads to improved employee

commitment. Employee inclusivity is also a necessary means of achieving

organizational commitment.

Organizational Commitment and Employees’ Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an essential defining attribute of job performance in

the organization. Job satisfaction refers to the attitudes, likes or dislikes, and

feelings employees associate with their organizational environment or work

(Muthuveloo et al., 2014). Job satisfaction evaluates employees' contentment

with their workplace's nature and environment (Callaghan & Coldwell,

2014). Job satisfaction reflects the alignment of an individual's interests and

the roles and regulations assigned to them in the organization. Employees

can achieve job satisfaction if they develop a positive attitude toward their

job, feel contented, and be happy in their workplace (Nikpour, 2018).

On the other hand, job dissatisfaction leads to a negative attitude

towards work. The employee does not appreciate their position in the

organization or the nature of work and dislikes the organizational

environment. Job commitment is significantly affected by the employee’s

satisfaction with their work and the organizational environment

(Mosadeghrad et al., 2008).

Job commitment results from feeling comfortable and contentment

among employees regarding their work and workplace environment. To

develop commitment, the employee must attain job satisfaction (Stanley et

al., 2013). Organizational leaders should lay a solid foundation for building

an environment that enables employees to align individual interests with the

organization's interests to achieve job satisfaction (Nikpour, 2018). Strategic

leadership and efficient management practices are vital in improving the

workplace environment and the transformation of the corporate culture to a

conducive and empowering environment. Employees must feel motivated

and appreciated to attain job satisfaction (Ramalho Luz et al., 2018).

Developing an environment that propagates job satisfaction is a necessary

leadership and management strategy in present-day organizational practice

since the nature of competition intensifies with employee retention and

loyalty, becoming vital determinants of competitive advantage (Amiens et

al., 2021)

In their study, Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015) identified that job

satisfaction varies among employees, and employees can experience

different states of satisfaction in the same work environment. Despite

employees being in the same work environment, this difference in job

satisfaction is mainly because of the variation in individual interests. It is

significant to note that the achievement of job satisfaction occurs when there

is a convergence of self-interests with organizational goals and interests

(Nikpour, 2018). Therefore, satisfaction levels can vary even for employees

in the same organizations and exposed to similar experiences. However,

Callaghan and Coldwell (2014) indicated that organizational practices that,

when put in place, improve the level of job satisfaction across the workforce.

Training, empowerment, employee engagement, and employee motivation

are essential factors that enhance job satisfaction.

Training and skills development are some of the most vital

requirements for job satisfaction in the present-day environment. Employees

seek to experience growth development regarding the work environment's

activities and competencies (Nikpour, 2018). As a result, many studies on

employee job satisfaction identify training and empowerment as essential

tools in promoting development among employees. Through training,

employees acquire new skills and competencies that enhance performance,

engage in new activities, and improve their ability to solve work-related

problems (Nikpour, 2018; Zumrah et al., 2013). Consequently, the

employees experience selffulfillment, which aligns personal interests with

the work environment.

Employee engagement fosters inclusivity in decision-making,

problem-solving, and innovation approaches, giving employees a sense of

identity within the organization (Nikpour, 2018). Employee engagement

enables employees to involve themselves in broader work experiences,

including developing new strategies for work, creating innovative solutions

to different challenges, and establishing new models of enhancing their

performance (Nikpour, 2018). These concepts manifest the key factors

leading to the development of organizational commitment among the

employees. Engagement, inclusivity, motivation, and empowerment enhance

job satisfaction, and employees orient their practices toward better

performance, improved output, and self-determination toward task

completion and organizational success (Nikpour, 2018; Zumrah et al., 2013).

Therefore, it is impossible to achieve organizational commitment without

first developing an organizational environment and workplace practices that

promote employee job satisfaction.

Organizational Commitment and Employees’ Performance

The present-day workforce requires employees’ productivity to

advance, aiming at meeting the market demands on workforce and employee

competence. Organizations are experiencing rapid developments that bring

intense market competition, forcing organizational managers and leaders to

design strategic methods to compete with their rivals (Carter & Greer, 2013).

The changes in the means of acquiring competitive advantage in the market

are changing from the traditional model, which focused on customers and

sales, to a new model that emphasizes the well-being of employees and the

advancement of the corporate culture (Carter & Greer, 2013; Pradhan &

Jena, 2016). Developing a competitive strategy for an organization requires

each organization's position to contribute to achieving the organizational

goals and objectives (Sendawula et al., 2018). Each position is designated

with unique roles and responsibilities, establishing the expected outputs and

contributions to the organization's performance. These roles and

responsibilities become the determinants of the skills and competencies that

the employees in those positions must acquire to maximize their productivity

(Pradhan & Jena, 2016). Therefore, an employee's performance in the

organization is a crucial input to achieving the organization's overall goals

and objectives.

The performance of an individual employee reflects the overall

performance of an organization. Therefore, organizations are rapidly

integrating models that promote optimal employee performance as a

competitive strategy. By advancing an individual employee's output, the

organization improves the company's overall performance (Carter & Greer,

2013). As a result, organizations have established different strategies for

ensuring that employees can perform better in their designated performance

(Carter & Greer, 2013; Sendawula et al., 2018). Nazir and Islam (2017)

established that the employees' performance is the determinant of the ability

to meet the customer needs in the organization. Organizations implementing

the customer-oriented practice method must enhance their employees'

performance (Nazir & Islam, 2017; Sendawula et al., 2018). The

organization's leadership and management model is an essential defining

attribute of the methods implemented to enhance employees’ performance.

Therefore, the organization's leadership must establish the need for improved

employee performance and the implication on the organization's

performance for the development of productive employee enhancement

policies.

Organizational commitment is the leading strategy for improving

employee performance (Carter & Greer, 2013). Organizational commitment

promotes the employee's ability to become goal-oriented, develop a personal

relationship with work, and develop an intrinsic commitment to completing

their roles (Carter & Greer, 2013; Pohl & Paillé, 2011). The employee

develops increased awareness of their contributions towards the

organizational goals and objectives through commitment. Through employee

commitment, employees develop significant attributes such as being self-

driven, developing solutions to challenges independently, and becoming

active team participants (Sendawula et al., 2018). As employees put in more

effort, the organization can maximize its performance. However, without

organizational commitment, the employees lack the necessary driving force

that encourages individual determination toward accomplishing specific

goals.

Achievement of individual commitment towards the organizational

goals among the employees fosters the development of a personal

relationship with the workplace. The employees develop individual goals in

their workplace that they must achieve while working at the organization

(Pradhan & Jena, 2016). As a result, they commit to completing their work

and achieving the individual work milestones as their activities. The

employees maximize their performance since they direct most of their effort

towards completing the work projects. The organization becomes an

environment where employees pursue their goals, considering work their

prioritized activity (Pradhan & Jena, 2016). Employees discover their

potential and improve their output through organizational commitment. The

employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses, enabling them to

maximize and improve their weaknesses (Pradhan & Jena, 2016; Sendawula

et al., 2018). As a result, the employees develop their skills and competence

through a progressive commitment towards challenging their efforts leading

to enhanced employee performance. Organizational commitment, therefore,

establishes a strong foundation for developing employees’ performance in

organizations (Eliyana et al., 2019).

Organizational Commitment and Employees’ Attendance

Attendance is a fundamental aspect that shapes employees and overall

organizational performance (Nikpour, 2018). The organizational practice

expects employees to establish a focused and committed routine to attend to

their duties unless they are incapacitated or allowed to stay out of the

workplace by the organizational policies, such as during holidays and

vacations (Ramalho Luz et al., 2018). Many researchers focus on two core

concepts regarding employee attendance: absenteeism and presenteeism (Ro

et al., 2017). Absenteeism remains among the most researched areas in

employee attendance behavior in organizational practice. The concept of

absenteeism refers to the employee’s failure to attend work for various

reasons. Baker-McClearn et al. (2010) highlighted that absenteeism is the

leading factor contributing to many organizations' unproductivity. There are

two classifications of absenteeism; organizationally excused and

organizationally unexcused absenteeism (Hassan et al., 2014).

Organizationally excused absenteeism refers to the specific cases the

organization designates for employees to be legally absent from the work

environment (Hassan et al., 2014). These include sick leaves, maternity

leaves, vacations, and holidays. Some organizational unexcused absences

include lateness, personal problems, and lack of interest in work.

According to Stanley et al. (2013), presenteeism is considered a

significant new concept; it refers to employees attending work while not

being able to perform at their maximum capacity due to sickness. According

to Deery et al. (2014), presenteeism arises from multiple issues, including

the commitment to work; employees feel obligated to work irrespective of

their health conditions and work nature, and the organization has zero

tolerance for uncertified attendance. The research on presenteeism is

increasing as more scholars and practitioners continue to uncover its

significance and influence on the performance of an organization (Stanley et

al.,2013).

Both concepts of presenteeism and absenteeism have a distinct

relationship with organizational commitment. In some cases, the idea of

presenteeism appears to result from commitment toward duty and

responsibility among employees. Due to their dedication to accomplishing

various tasks in the organization, employees tend to develop the tendency to

achieve self-fulfillment through completing their daily routine at work

(Baker-McClearn et al., 2010). Employees with organizational commitment

tend to have set aspirations and objectives that they want to achieve daily in

their workplace (Stanley et al., 2013). Therefore, even when they are not in

perfect health conditions, their determination leads them to attend work to

accomplish their set targets. To this extent, presenteeism manifests a highly

developed affective commitment toward employees' organizational roles and

responsibilities (Stanley et al., 2013).

On the other hand, absenteeism is a detrimental factor in promoting

the achievement of organizational commitment among employees (Clinebell

et al., 2013). Many organizations experience poor performance due to

reduced attendance rates, where employees fail to show up for work as

expected. According to Addae et al. (2013), absenteeism also reflects a lack

of interest in the work environment and work nature. Employees with many

absenteeism cases do not have work commitments and have a negative

attitude toward their workplace (Cohen et al., 2016). Also, absenteeism can

lead to employees losing their commitment to work if they encounter cases

outside work that make them develop stress, depression, and negative

attitudes towards work or other affectionate components of their lives (De

Gieter et al., 2011). For instance, if an employee’s close relative dies, the

employee may develop stress and depression, leading to a lack of focus and

determination in their work. Therefore, employees' attendance at work is a

crucial aspect that reflects their commitment to the organizational objectives

(DeTienne et al., 2012). Developing organizational commitment can lead to

eliminating cases of absenteeism in many organizations.

Organizational Commitment and Employees’ Intent to Leave

The organizational environment is a crucial determinant of

employees’ well-being and stays in the organization. Studies around the

intent to leave investigated why employees intend to leave their current

organization (Frear et al., 2017). The employees’ intent to leave work is the

foundation of the emergence of turnover. Oh (2019) studied the

organizational commitment profiles and turnover intentions and highlighted

that different events lead to the development of intent to leave work among

employees and, later, the turnover. In this study, the misalignment of

employees’ self-interests with the organization's goals becomes the primary

cause of the intention to leave work (Oh, 2019). The intention to leave work

is a gradual process that demonstrates dissatisfaction with the workplace and

employees' performance in their employment position (Khan & Du, 2014).

Organizations experiencing a high level of turnover and many employees

developing the intention to leave have lower working standards, poor

employee relations, and an unconducive workplace environment (Addae et

al., 2006; Labrague et al., 2018; Oh, 2019). The condition of organizational

culture is thus the determinant and facilitator of the development of

employee intention to leave.

The development of a negative attitude toward employment, the

workplace environment, or the organization's management culminates in a

desire to leave the employer (Labrague et al., 2018). Employee

dissatisfaction with the roles assigned to them in the organization and the

nature of work is a leading factor in the development of intention to leave

and turnover (Choi et al., 2012). The employees lose the initial relationship

with the organization, which leads to dissatisfaction with the outcomes of

their efforts, the processes of work they undertake, or the rewards they get

from the organization (Addae, Praveen Parboteeah & Davis, 2006). The

employees experience a high level of disorientation with the organizational

expectations and outcomes, leading to the development of withdrawal

symptoms and, consequently, turnover.

Research into the connection between organizational commitment and

employee turnover is progressively increasing (Elçi et al., 2012). The two

constructs demonstrate a relationship in which they affect each other (Meyer

& Allen, 1991). Several factors are significant regarding the intent to leave

an organization. According to Mosadeghrad et al. 2008), they are affective

commitment, professional stability, job satisfaction, area of employees’

work, and job satisfaction. According to Elci et al. (2012), leadership

behaviors, stressors, and organizational commitment cause employees to be

consciously and deliberately willing to leave an organization. Leadership

support is lacking in the call center environment; therefore, it is difficult for

call center leaders to retain employees, notably facing employees wanting to

leave (Pierre &Tremblay, 2011). Other studies also demonstrate comparable

results indicating that committed employees are likely to remain in their

workplace due to the existing positive relationship and alignment of self-

interests with the organization (Oh, 2019). Organizational commitment

establishes an intrinsic determination toward work activities and the

employees' organizational environment, which creates a personal

relationship between the organization and the employee (Nikpour, 2018).

Therefore, it is difficult for employees to quit their organization when they

have higher personal and intrinsic value.

Organizational commitment is an integral concept that constitutes

multiple elements, such as job satisfaction, employee motivation,

empowerment, and inclusivity (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees become

committed to their work when they experience a friendly environment that

promotes their development and helps them achieve their goals (Ro & Lee,

2017; Zito et al., 2018). Organizational commitment arises from adequate

compensation of employees in the organization. The employees can meet

their personal needs from the compensation or the benefits they get from

working in the organization (Labrague et al., 2018). These attributes of

organizational commitment cannot lead to turnover or intent to leave the

workforce. Employees experiencing job satisfaction will not be willing to

leave their work positions, the same as employees who experience growth

and development in their careers and personal lives.

However, based on the continuance commitment model, where

employees are only committed to the organization due to the fear of risks

associated with the lack of the job, it is likely for employees to develop

dissatisfaction and consequently lead to intent to leave and turnover (Addae

et al., 2006). According to Allen and Meyer (1990), continuous commitment

establishes an employee whose only goal is to hold onto their work, not

because they enjoy working there, but to avoid losing their position. This

commitment does not guarantee job satisfaction and the complete alignment

of individual interests and the organization. An employee is, therefore, likely

to experience intent to leave but still be available at the workplace due to the

minor benefits such as salary associated with the work (Labrague et al.,

2018; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Zito et al., 2018). Employees with this form of

commitment are likely to turnover if they get more rewarding jobs or find

alternative sources of the benefits they were getting in the organization.

Therefore, organizational commitment and employees’ intent to leave

are complementary and indirectly proportional. An increase in one construct

leads to a corresponding reduction in the other (Ford et al., 2019). If there is

high job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation towards work, a positive attitude,

and experience of self-growth and development, employees are unlikely to

develop an intent to leave since the level of commitment is high (Callaghan

& Coldwell, 2014; Zito et al., 2018). Similarly, intent to leave will develop

among employees if the working conditions do not facilitate job satisfaction,

empowerment, and personal interests do not converge with the

organizational goals since they will not develop the organizational

commitment (Ford et al., 2019). Therefore, an organization's leadership must

foster a conducive work environment, create employee empowerment and

development programs such as training, facilitate job satisfaction, and

motivate employees to reduce the possibility of leaving and turnover (Oh,

2019).

Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment

The leadership practice is instrumental in shaping organizational

behavior and establishing the corporate culture (Hopkins & Scott, 2016).

Leadership facilitates the initiation and implementation of critical

organizational practice programs, establishes frameworks for developing

customer-satisfaction strategies, and ensures alignment of the organizational

practices with the organization's expected outcomes and set goals

(Muthuveloo et al., 2014). Leadership practice significantly influences

organizational commitment since it is fundamental to achieving customer

satisfaction in organizations (Raja & Palanichamy, 2011). Over the past 50

years, studies on different leadership styles have significantly intensified

(Clinebell et al., 2013; Kerdngern & Thanitbenjasith, 2017; Muthuveloo et

al., 2014). The literature's intensity reflects the demand for effective

leadership practices that align with the business organizations' rapid changes.

Therefore, scholars and practitioners establish, and study different leadership

approaches used in an organization using empirical and evidence-based data

to demonstrate which leadership styles are more effective in specific

contexts (Kerdngern & Thanitbenjasith, 2017; Raja & Palanichamy, 2011).

Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, situational leadership,

and laissez-faire leadership are among the most researched leadership styles

due to their alignment with present-day change-oriented organizational

practice (Kerdngern & Thanitbenjasith, 2017; Muthuveloo et al., 2014; Raja

& Palanichamy, 2011). A corresponding increase in the literature evaluating

the effects of the different leadership styles on organizational experience is

also developing.

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment

According to Eliyana et al. (2019), transformational leadership

significantly and positively affects organizational commitment. In this study,

transformational leadership demonstrates improved competence among

leaders to create effective organizational strategies that enhance the

workplace environment. As a result, employees establish job satisfaction and

become committed to their roles (Johansson et al., 2014). Transformational

leaders develop a leadership approach that facilitates employee integration

and inclusiveness in critical decision-making to improve the organization

(Peng et al., 2019). Employees can thus provide proposals and feedback on

various practices in the organization, facilitating the implementation of an

improved workplace environment (Clinebell et al., 2013; Eliyana et al.,

2019). Therefore, transformational leadership focuses on creating an

improved workforce environment where employees are satisfied, thus

developing organizational commitment. Through transformational

leadership, employees are motivated and appraised on achievement

(Kerdngern & Thanitbenjasith, 2017). Transformational leaders focus on

developing an intrinsically motivated workforce where employees become

proud of their accomplishments. The models of motivation, such as appraisal

and recognition, do not encourage extrinsic motivation, such as presents and

pay raises (Clinebell et al., 2013; Peng et al., 2019). As a result, employees

develop a positive attitude toward their work and focus on improving their

performance. Consequently, employees achieve organizational commitment

through progressive job satisfaction, motivation, and work positivity.

Transformational leadership also improves the achievement of

organizational commitment through empowering workers. Leaders create

training programs in organizations to help employees acquire new skills and

competencies to enhance their preparedness for new changes and enable the

organization to offer advanced customer experiences (Eliyana et al., 2019).

Through training the workforce, transformational leaders ensure that

employees can develop solutions to the challenges brought about by the

rapid changes in business organizations (Furtner et al., 2013). The

organization’s ability to empower the workforce creates a self-fulfillment

attitude among the employees, thus facilitating job satisfaction and the

development of convergence between employees’ interests and

organizational practice (Clinebell et al., 2013). The empowerment of

employees and the establishment of a positive relationship with the

organization improve their loyalty and organizational citizenship, thus

eliminating the possibility of intent to leave and turnover in the workforce

(Peng et al., 2019). Therefore, the transformational leadership style creates

an environment that prioritizes job satisfaction, employee retention,

empowerment, and employee performance, thus facilitating the development

of organizational commitment (Jyoti & Bhau, 2015).

Transactional Leadership and Organizational Commitment

Transactional leaders focus on rewarding employees and ensuring

employees remain focused on the organization's established goals and targets

(Sayadi, 2016). The leader creates measurable milestones for the

organization and rewards the employees for achieving these goals (Bass,

1997). Moreover, the leader also engages in active management roles to

monitor the employees' progress toward organizational objectives.

As a result, transactional leaders eliminate employees' possibility to alienate

from the organization's goals (McCleskey, 2014). Transformational

leadership’s relationship with organizational commitment is among the most

researched leadership styles, and the existing literature demonstrates a

positive and significant relationship between the two constructs (Furtner et

al., 2013). According to a study by Yahaya and Ebrahim (2016),

transactional leadership utilizes influence and regular consultation to

promote the organization's desired goals and outcomes. The leader promotes

an enhanced workforce environment in which the employees can achieve the

established goals.

Transactional leadership promotes employee commitment since it

creates a goaloriented workplace culture. The organization operates to

prepare the employees and gives them adequate resources at their disposal to

pursue the established goals (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Therefore,

employees are empowered with the skills and competencies required to

achieve the organization's goals, promoting empowerment and

selfactualization. This empowerment contributes significantly to job

satisfaction among employees, allowing them to improve their performance

and commit to their work (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Through transactional

leadership, employee motivation is in the form of extrinsic motivation,

which integrates physical rewards. Therefore, employee commitment to their

work is to achieve the established goals and targets and obtain various

rewards.

Transactional leadership also propagates the attainment of

organizational commitment among the employees through establishing a

regular and active management leadership, where the organizational leader

continuously monitors the practices of the employees to ensure there is

alignment towards achieving the organizational milestones, goals, and

objectives (Pradhan, & Pradhan, 2015). Transactional leaders guide the

employees, helping them solve most of their problems during their work

practices (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). Therefore, the leaders provide an

integrational model that creates a conducive environment to facilitate

horizontal and vertical communication strategies in the organization

(McCleskey, 2014). As a result, decision-making processes in the

organization are inclusive, involving employees and leaders. Thus, the

employees develop a close relationship with the leaders, facilitating the

establishment of collective leadership and organizational culture. As a result,

employees become committed to developing improved performance by

committing their skills and abilities to achieve the required milestones with

their leaders (Clinebell et al., 2013).

Laissez-Faire Leadership and Organizational Commitment

The laissez-faire leadership approach has detrimental consequences on

organizational commitment in the workforce. Leaders using this style often

abstain from decision-making processes as well as failing to facilitate the

organizational management roles (Bučiūnienė & Škudienė, 2008; Furtner et

al., 2013). Therefore, the organizational workforce is responsible for all the

decisions made in the workforce. The defining attributes of leadership

practices are not available in this form of leadership (Abasilim et al., 2019).

The leader is only available physically but lacks the essential skills and

abilities to identify them as the workforce leader. As a result, the employees

become their leaders, who rely only on their own experience, knowledge,

and competence to accomplish their work (Furtner et al., 2013). This form of

leadership lacks organizational commitment attributes and thus has a

negative relationship (Abasilim et al., 2019). Employee satisfaction,

empowerment, and inclusivity are unavailable; therefore, the leadership

cannot contain the tenants of organizational commitment.

Summary and Conclusions

The literature review demonstrated that organizational commitment is

a crucial aspect of organizational practice, and the leadership model adopted

has significant implications for organizational performance.

Transformational and transactional leadership have a positive relationship

and tend to foster organizational commitment (Furtner et al., 2013). On the

contrary, laissez-faire leadership has a negative relationship with

organizational commitment. The existing literature only focuses on the

specific constructs of organizational commitment, leaving a gap in how the

different leadership styles relate to organizational commitment. The existing

studies on call center leadership do not demonstrate the relationship between

all three leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

and the relationship between organizational commitment in call centers. The

existing literature also demonstrated the existence of hardships in the

development of organizational commitment in call centers. At the same time,

there is a gap in how leadership styles can achieve organizational

commitment. This study has established a concrete framework that bridges

the gap in the lack of adequate literature showing how different leadership

styles impact the performance of organizational commitment, evaluating

components of job satisfaction, employee performance, and intent to leave.

Therefore, chapter 3 will methodologically provide the outcome of the study.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative, predictive nonexperimental study

using multiple regression analysis was to examine the relationship between

leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and

outcomes of leadership and call center workers' organizational commitment.

I conducted a correlation study between leadership styles and call center

workers’ organizational commitment. I anticipated that a correlation would

be found, which could link leadership styles and employees' conduct

regarding organizational commitment. The predictor variables for the study

were transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire, and the outcome

variables were organizational commitment (affective, normative, and

continuance). In this chapter, I examine the nine factors used to construct the

MLQ and the OCQ measuring organizational commitment. Chapter 3

includes a discussion of the quantitative methods used in this study. The

research design and rationale, methods, populations, sampling and sampling

procedures, recruitment, participation, data collection, instruments, and data

analysis are addressed in this chapter. The chapter concludes with a

summary regarding validity threats and ethical considerations and the

transition to Chapter 4 (Results).

Research Design and Rationale

The predictor variables of this study were transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire. The outcome variables were organizational

commitment: affective, normative, and continuance. The MLQ consisted of

nine factors that were examined to measure leadership style. The

transformational leadership style has five factors, whereas the other two

styles, transactional and laissez-faire, have two factors. I also studied OCQ,

that measured organizational commitment.

Research Design

The study was a correlational research design. The reason behind this

research design was that it gave a clear picture of no manipulation and was

observational in data collection. Correlational research has a purpose in a

quantitative study, such as deductive, objective, and generality (Curtis et al.,

2016), for instance, describing a variable, comparing the variable to a certain

standard, and establishing a link between two or more variables. The

correlative research design was appropriate as I analyzed the relationship

between leadership styles and organizational commitment.

Correlational research can be economical and more practical to

implement and can produce results relatively quickly. However, the research

design may involve extensive resources and intensive efforts to measure the

survey variables. The cost involved depends on various factors, including

sample size, the nature of data sources, and the methods of data collection

complexities employed. Despite its strengths, correlational research design

barely answers causal nature questions. If results from a correlational study

are used to make causal inferences, significant complications can arise. The

temptation is common with correlation data consumers (Anderson, 2015).

As noted above, the correlational design was not used to make

inferences on causal relationships. I used a quantitative method/design as a

mode of inquiry to collect and analyze survey data from participants. Taylor

(2017) posited that there are various methods researchers can choose from

while conducting a study. These research methods include a mixed method,

qualitative methodology, and quantitative methodology. Before choosing

any of these methods, it was critical for me first to explore their study's

contingencies. Consequently, any specific research method depends on the

study's purpose, the data types used, and the data analysis technique

(Anderson, 2015).

In this study, I employed a quantitative study design. This study

design was deemed appropriate compared to a mixed approach or qualitative

method for various reasons, including the study objectives, the type of data

to be collected (interval data), and the techniques to be used in the analysis

(correlation and regression; Kim et al., 2003). The subsequent paragraphs

highlight some rationales for selecting a quantitative study design over the

other two inquiry modes.

Quantitative approaches use deductive reasoning to support ideas,

while qualitative methods formulate theory by inductive reasoning (Kumar,

2019). Most statistical studies are categorized as quantitative as they involve

measuring and analyzing numerical data. Other studies involving text data

are classified as qualitative, as declared by Frels and Onwuegbuzie (2013).

Further, Frels and Onwuegbuzie (2013) defined a mixed approach using

qualitative and quantitative methods as a research type. According to Kumar

(2019), positivist researchers widely use quantitative study designs to

establish the connection between variables. In so doing, they can define

these connections as research hypotheses or questions.

This study's primary purpose was to examine any relationship between

three predictor variables (leadership styles) and the outcome variable

(organizational commitment) in line with quantitative research method

principles. Extracting and analyzing numerical and interval data from the

online survey was related to statistical procedure steps promulgated by

quantitative methods.

Due to its nature, the qualitative mode of inquiry would have been

inappropriate for this study. Some of the qualitative design goals include

understanding individuals' experiences, motivations, and actions instead of

testing existing theories. Similarly, a mixed approach may add more

information outside the normal statistical hypothesis testing. However, it did

not align per se with the deductive reasoning method. Additionally, a mixed

approach posed a challenge to this study regarding time and resource

constraints. I strived to use quantitative and qualitative designs to collect and

analyze data (see Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2013).

The quantitative method for this study was consistent with recent

empirical studies. Hafeez et al. (2012) conducted quantitative research

focusing on call centers in the telecom sector. Hafeez et al. investigated the

relationship between leadership styles, organizational performance, and

organizational commitment. Similarly, Gorde (2018) used a quantitative

research design to examine the relationship between employees' job

satisfaction and leadership style in India's call centers. Likewise, Chandra

(2016) used descriptive research and quantitative methods to test leadership

style, job satisfaction, and the work environment influence on call center

workers.

Methodology

Population

The study population was adults working inside a call center

environment and reporting to a manager. The participants were between the

ages of 18 and 65. The participants were domestically located. Race, gender,

or education level were not factors but were part of the demographics. The

sample size was computed using the G*Power 3.1.9.7 statistical power

analysis program. The scale of measurement was an interval.

Sampling and Sampling Procedures

With quantitative methodology, I used a nonprobability convenience

sampling procedure to carefully select the required sample of call center

agents using SurveyMonkey. A power analysis was used to determine the

proper sample size of 166. The G*Power software calculated the sample size

for multiple regression with a significance level of 0.05 and with an

anticipated statistical power level of 0.95, where the number of predictors

was equal to nine, and the anticipated effect size was 0.15, with a calculated

sample size of 166 (see Faul et al., 2009). By definition, the convenience

sampling strategy entails selecting conveniently available samples from the

population, per Kumar (2019). A researcher's samples are chosen for

simplicity and ease of recruitment (Uprichard, 2013). For example, a

researcher may choose samples due to geographical proximity, easy

accessibility, immediate approval for the study, known contacts, and being

part of the participant's group (Kumar, 2019). Though it is good to test

samples representing the entire population, the population is too large to test

in some instances. As a result, many researchers find it appropriate to use

convenience sampling (Etikan et al., 2016). The convenience sampling

technique is also cost-effective, fast, and easy to sample.

Considering the resources and time constraints, I used a convenience

sampling method for data collection as it was not viable to collect data from

the whole target population. Dhanpat et al. (2018) conducted a quantitative

study to support this choice of sampling to explore employee retention and

intent to leave a call center. I used a convenience sample to collect data from

participants who were called center workers.

Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

In this study, I used a nonprobability convenience sampling

procedure; both men SurveyMonkey using an online survey. The

questionnaires were sent to all employees working in the call center, with the

expectation that at least an adequate sample size would respond for better

generalization. SurveyMonkey, a third-party data-collecting company,

provided the online questionnaire to the participants in the call center

environment. The approved letter from SurveyMonkey was attached

(Appendix A) to initiate the study. The approval was granted from Walden’s

institutional review board (IRB) to conduct the study; data were collected.

SurveyMonkey provided a letter of cooperation with permission to conduct

the research to the call center participants.

The data collection procedure for this research study involved

administering an online survey of both the MLQ and OCQ questionnaires to

the targeted population of call center workers. SurveyMonkey recruited and

hosted the data collection, using their highpriority listings, which guaranteed

the selected audience answered the survey first. SurveyMonkey worked with

trusted, vetted survey panels with respondents in all areas of service-oriented

organizations.

First, the connection with SurveyMonkey was by phone and email to

ensure they could provide the needed services. The specified requirements

had been established, and the account was set up. I had received a letter

stating that SurveyMonkey had granted permission to conduct research using

their platform (Appendix A). The MLQ survey was uploaded from the

purchased license from MindGarden. The OCQ survey was manually typed

and presented to SurveyMonkey, and the survey was built online. The

licenses had been acquired, providing permission for academic purposes to

recreate their questionnaire. The surveys were compiled into the

SurveyMonkey online system. The account representative was notified and

confirmed the readiness to collect data responses from potential research

participants via email based on the inclusion criteria provided. The

participants received an email from SurveyMonkey to participate, which

included pertinent information about the nature of the study.

The informed consent page also provided detailed information on how

the participant's privacy would be protected and what the participants could

expect to find in the survey. After reading the study's recruitment materials,

each potential research participant had the option to select whether they

would participate in the study. If at any point, the potential research

participant decided not to proceed with the survey, the following action was

to provide an exit from the survey. However, if the potential research

participant agreed to participate by clicking on a redial button on the

informed consent, the participant was forwarded to the online web survey

tool to begin answering the survey questions for the study.

Finally, after the designated number of research participants

completed the survey, based on the sample size and contract agreement,

SurveyMonkey provided me an Excel spreadsheet with all completed data.

After that, the research data responses were imported into the SPSS software

application to analyze multiple regression and Pearson r tests. After the

requirements for the study's data responses had been completed, the data

were preserved in a secure password-protected computer for a mandatory 7-

year period and eventually will be destroyed and deleted from the device.

Demographic (Appendix B) information, such as gender, age, level of

education, employment status, and length of service was collected, with the

exception of respondents’ names to conceal identity.

Instrumentation and Operationalization of Constructs

The data collection was done through a third-party data collection

source using the provided questionnaires from MLQ and OCQ through email

submission to the call center workers. SurveyMonkey had a pool of vetted

call center participants who were used for this study. These two instruments

formulated the survey for this study. MindGarden Inc. provided the MLQ

instruments, which had been purchased, and the OCQ academic license had

been obtained, which allowed permission to use the scales for academic

purposes upon receiving IRB and Walden approval. Once notified, Survey

Monkey sent out the survey to their vetted call center participants through

email submission. SurveyMonkey provided a consent form on the first page

of each survey.

Instrumentation

MLQ

Bass and Avolio (2000) designed the MLQ to measure

transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire leadership behaviors. The call

center workers measured their managers' leadership styles using the 45-item

questionnaire from the MLQ to identify their leader's leadership styles and

outcomes. This instrument had 36 items and nine different leadership factors

to measure leadership style. Transformational leadership behavior has five

factors. These items included the following dimensions: idealized influence-

attributes, idealized influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transactional leadership had

two factors: contingent reward and management-by-exception. Laissez-faire

leadership had two factors comprised of management-by-exception (passive)

and laissez-faire leadership. The other nine items of MLQ helped measure

the outcomes or results of leadership models. There are three subscales of

outcomes of leadership: effectiveness, extra effort, and satisfaction. Bass and

Avolio (2000) rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale type (4 = frequently,

3 = fairly often, 2 = sometimes, 1 = once in a while, 0 = not at all). The MLQ

has been widely used in previous studies, with validity (Rahman & Post,

2012). According to Bogler et al. (2013), MLQ is valid and reliable for

measuring leadership styles. Bass and Avolio (2004) analyzed and collected

data from 2,142 participants to test the reliability of MLQ. In their study, no

self-ratings were included. Analyzing the data, the authors found that

reliabilities ranged from 0.74 to 0.94 for the total items, including each scale.

Cronbach alpha offers reliability testing means (Yunus, 2010). Yunus (2010)

claimed that a score greater than 0.70 shows strong internal consistency. A

study by Anderson (2015) using a sample population of 107 individuals

reported a Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.79 to 0.97.

OCQ

The OCQ developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) was central to this

study. OCQ relates to the measurement of affective (want), continuance

(have to stay), and normative (obligated) commitment and counts among the

most frequently used instruments (Mathieu et al., 2000; Mathieu & Zajac,

1990). The OCQ instrument measured variables using a 7-point scale with

three response categories ranging from 1 to 3 (strongly, moderately, and

slightly disagree); 4 (neither agree nor disagree); and 5 to 7 (slightly,

moderately, or strongly agree; Allen & Meyer, 1990). The instrument

comprised 24 items, eight assigned to each organizational commitment

dimension: affective, normative, and continuance. This version of the OCQ

was positively correlated with organizational commitment and can predict

performance, as Fridoon and Nasrin (2009) declared.

The reliability of the OCQ is well acknowledged. As highlighted Lee

et al., (1992), Cronbach's alpha values lie between 0.82 and 0.93. Lam

(1998) provided support that over 10 weeks, the retest reliability was 0.59.

Incremental validity also showed a positive result. Additionally, positive

relationships were found with job satisfaction (Caught et al., 2000), and

within the organization, readiness remained (Steers, 1977). De Gieter et al.

(2011) measured organizational commitment using Allen and Meyer's

(1990) three organizational commitment scales dimensions. The use of 287

nursing samples using the 7-point scale 1 to 7 of totally disagreeing to

agreeing, displaying Cronbach alpha values of .72, .85, and .81. The

reliability was deemed satisfactory regarding performance, intent to leave,

organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.

Data Analysis

SurveyMonkey gathered interval data and supplied it in an excel

spreadsheet. SurveyMonkey is an online data collection survey company.

Before the final data, the company provided a data view-fed excel

spreadsheet. The variable view was used to code, clean, and tabulate the data

appropriately after obtaining the data. After that, the coded and cleaned data

was exported to SPSS software for statistical and data analysis, where

several questions were answered. The descriptive statistical analysis,

including maximums, means, and standard deviations, was used to calculate

and report all studied variables.

I investigated the link between leadership styles and call center

workers' organizational commitment. The RQ was as follows:

RQ: What is the relationship between leadership styles

(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and outcomes, as

measured by MLQ, and organizational commitment, as measured by OCQ,

of call center workers?

H0: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes do not predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

Ha: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes do predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to establish if there was a

significant linear relationship between the outcome and predictor variables

of interest. Various assumptions were tested to validate the best regression

model for the study. Most parametric tests require that the assumption of

normality be met. Statistically, a normal distribution has a mean of zero and

a standard deviation of one. Further, George and Mallery (2021) describe

normal distribution as having a symmetric bell-shaped curve. Therefore, in

this study, Shapiro-Wilk's W test was used to test the assumption of

normality. Wilk's test should not be significant (p > 0.05) to meet the

normality assumption.

I ran separate models to conduct a linear regression on the

organizational commitment outcome variable. The outcome variable was

evaluated for a linear correlation with predictor variables (manager's

leadership styles). The p ≤ .05 level was used for statistical significance and

served as the null hypothesis rejection level for all the hypothesis testing. I

performed a correlation analysis. The purpose of the correlation analysis was

to determine the positive or negative nature of the associations between the

outcome and predictor variables. Pearson r was an appropriate statistic for

the correlational analysis. A correlation research design was the ideal choice

because the design observes a multilinear relationship between the constructs

of interest (Burns & Grove, 2005).

Threats to Validity

Validity in research refers to how well the instrument measures what it

intends to measure. There are two types of validity, which include external

and internal validity. These two concepts play critical roles in conducting a

research study. According to Baldwin (2018), ensuring that internal validity

is highly achieved when designing research is crucial. The author defined

internal validity as a direct relationship between the observed difference in

outcome variables and predictor variables. A strong internal validity was

more evident when the association observed in differences was not

connected to extraneous variables (Vogt, 2011). There are various threats to

internal validity, which may lead to making an erroneous conclusion. Such

threats need to be addressed to achieve as much as possible quality research

studies. However, external validity refers to the extent to which findings

from the study sample were extrapolated to the entire population (Baldwin,

2018).

The internal validity of the research was affected by instrument

validity. Invalid instruments cause insufficient internal validity. A valid

instrument accurately measures the defined variable(s) of a study Kumar

(2019). The MLQ, which is being used to determine leadership styles

(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire), was validated and reliable

by several researchers (Bass & Avolio, 2000). This study was correlative,

which was a non-experimental design. Therefore, this study cannot be

affected by internal validity threats. Experimental studies are the only type

of research design prone to internal validity threats (Anderson, 2015).

External validity is the degree to which research findings based on a

sample of individuals can be generalized to a broader population from which

the sample is derived (Olsen et al., 2013). One of the study's goals was to

achieve external validity; to do that, the research sample size used people

(call center workers) with different characteristics (for instance, employees

with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, from different economic

backgrounds, gender, and age).

Ethical Procedures

In any research field, ethical procedures need to be upheld by a

researcher when carrying out a study. As such, researchers are often faced

with ethical dilemmas in almost every study stage. Every student at Walden

University is required to have an understanding of ethical practices before

data collection. Furthermore, students pursuing their doctoral studies must

have an approved IRB application (approval no. 05-18-210740399). The

following paragraphs detail the procedures to be taken to ensure this study

will meet ethical requirements.

As noted earlier, the data collection procedure selected for this

research study involved administering an online survey questionnaire tool.

Survey Monkey conducted the study. The researcher sought permission to

conduct research in the call center, and the participants were reached through

an email system. This researcher's data was not performed until the Walden

IRB application was approved.

A letter via email was sent to the invited participants for the study. In

this letter, the researcher introduced herself as a student at Walden

University and a researcher. The first page of the letter contained informed

permission for information. The remainder of the letter had information

regarding the study's purpose, a statement indicating no incentive shall be

offered upon completion of the survey, and another statement that

participants can voluntarily withdraw from the study if not interested.

The agreement information had statements such as participants'

identities would remain confidential, and no data will be collected regarding

their identities and names. Every participant had a right, without any

consequence, to withdraw from the study. The researcher administered a

survey instrument using the SurveyMonkey application. By doing so, all call

center workers' confidentiality and privacy were protected in this research

study. Before conducting the survey, SurveyMonkey was updated on the

type of participants needed, what instruments would be used for data

collection, and the estimated time for the survey. The survey remained open

for a given timeframe for the participants to complete it at their own desired

time. SurveyMonkey, after that, compiled and downloaded the data in an

Excel/SPSS file. The survey was deleted from SurveyMonkey once released.

This website was secured entirely to avoid data leakage and manipulation.

After the requirements for the study's data responses had been

completed, the data was preserved in a secure password-protected computer

for a mandatory seven years and will eventually be destroyed and deleted

from the device.

Summary

Chapter 3 contained a description of the study method to conduct the

research using a quantitative, nonexperimental, correlational study that

investigated the relationships between three leadership styles

(transformational, transactional, and laissezfaire) and outcomes of leadership

(effectiveness, extra effort, and satisfaction), and call center workers'

organizational commitment. The chapters outlined the research design and

rationale, methods, populations, sampling and sampling procedures,

recruitment, participation, data collection, instruments, data analysis, threats

to validity, and ethical implications. Chapter 4 will ultimately provide the

results of the study.

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

This quantitative predictive nonexperimental study used multiple

regression analysis and other statistical analysis to examine the relationship

between the different leadership styles (transformational, transactional,

laissez-faire) and outcomes of leadership and organizational commitment of

call center workers. This chapter includes the RQ, data collection methods,

and the statistical analysis used to test the different hypotheses. The

leadership styles and outcomes were the predictive variables, and

organizational commitment was the outcome variable. This study's inclusion

criteria were adults working inside a call center environment reporting to a

manager.

Data Collection

The necessary IRB documents went to Walden University IRB for

review on May 5, 2022. Walden University's IRB approved the IRB

materials on July 05, 2022, and data collection began through an onsite

contact at the partner organization. Data collection started through the online

platform Survey Monkey, a third-party data-collecting company. The

surveys were distributed electronically via email to the approved call center

participants. The power analysis was used to determine the proper sample

size of 166. The calculated sample size for multiple regression was with a

significance level of 0.05 and an anticipated statistical power level of 0.95.

Recruitment and Response Rate

The surveys were distributed electronically via email to the approved

sample. A total of 350 surveys were circulated, out of which 251

questionnaires were completed. From the 251 responses, ~66% (166)

responded to all the questions used for the analysis. The survey was opened

on Oct 25, 2022, and closed on November 29, 2022.

Before entering the survey, the respondents were asked, “Have you

ever worked in a call center environment?” After responding to the question,

the call center personnel were presented with the survey questionnaires. The

survey consisted of five demographic questions, 45 multifactor leadership

(MLQ) questions, and 15 organizational commitment (OCQ) questions.

Twenty of the 45 MLQ questions targeted attributes of the transformational

leadership style: individualized consideration, idealized attributes, idealized

behaviors, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Twelve

questions targeted attributes of the transactional style of leadership,

contingent reward, management by exception (active), and management by

exception (passive); four questions targeted laissez-faire; and the remaining

nine targeted the outcomes of leadership, effectiveness, satisfaction, and

extra effort. The fifteen OCQ questions targeted all three components of

organizational commitment: affective commitment, continuance

commitment, and normative commitment.

The target population for this study was personnel working inside a

call center environment reporting to a manager. The ages of the participants

ranged from 18 to 65. The participants were domestically located. Race,

gender, or marital status were not a factor but part of the demographics.

In this chapter, I discuss the demographics analysis, the OCQ and

MLQ questionnaire’s reliability, and the link between leadership styles and

organizational commitment of call center workers using multiple regression.

The RQ and hypotheses are as follows:

RQ: What is the relationship between leadership styles

(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and outcomes, as

measured by MLQ, and organizational commitment, as measured by OCQ,

of call center workers?

H0: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes do not predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

Ha: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes do not predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance)

in call center workers.

The p ≤ .05 level was used for statistical significance and served as the

null hypothesis rejection level for all the hypothesis testing. Correlation

analysis was done to determine the positive or negative nature of the

associations between the outcome and predictor variables. Pearson r was an

appropriate statistic for the correlational analysis. A correlation research

design was the ideal choice because the design observes a multilinear

relationship between the constructs of interest (see Haider & Dasti, 2021).

Demographic Analysis

Before the survey began, the participants were asked whether they had

worked in a call center environment. After this, the participants were asked a

“Yes” or “No” consent on whether they would like to take the survey, and

then the survey would begin. The demographics questions were asked on the

second page. The participants reported information on five demographics:

income, gender, age, device type, and region.

The demographics questions assessed the characteristics of the sample

who responded to the survey. According to the survey, 53% of respondents

reported household incomes of less than $75K per year. Of all the

respondents, the majority were women (~51%). Almost 38% of the

respondents were in the age range of 45 to 60 years. The fourth question was

regarding the device type; it was observed that 50% of the sample were iOS

phone/tablet users, while 45% were Android phone/tablet users. The device

type was particularly asked to assess if a particular device type had abruptly

left the survey or had caused some error in the response. The final question

of the demographics section was about the region where the participants

resided in the United States. The question was presented to assess the sample

from the different regions that had taken the survey. The participants were

distributed across different regions, and there was no bias towards a single

region in the final output. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics that

represented for the research.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics

Gender Male 78 47.5

Female 85 51.0

Prefer not to disclose 3 1.5

Age 18-29

17.5

30-44

26.3

45-60

37.4

>60

17.3

Prefer not to disclose

1.5

Device Android 75 45

Variable Variable n %

iOS 83 49.8

Other device 8 5.2

Income $0-$74,999 88 52.9

$75,000-$149,999 45 27.0

Note. N = 166.

Using Survey Monkey, a data collection agency, a nonprobability

convenience sampling procedure was used to select the required call center

workers' sample. The online survey was sent to a sample of 350 vetted

prospects working in a call center environment. The convenience sampling

strategy entails selecting conveniently available samples from the

population, as declared by Kumar (2019). Using a nonprobability

convenience sampling procedure, men and women working with an

immediate manager were sampled using an online survey across the different

regions. Because the demographic characteristics of the sample were known

prior to distribution, a sample that did not represent the targeted population

was avoided. The Middle Atlantic region had 22.9% responses, followed by

the South Atlantic region with 19.6% responses. The Pacific region had

$150,000+ 21 12.6

Prefer not to disclose 12 7.5

15.2% responses. Lastly, the East North Central region had 12.3% of

responses, which was concluded to be efficient for the data needed for the

research.

Instruments and Reliability

The OCQ and MLQ instruments were used for this study. OCQ relates

to the measurement of affective (want), continuance (have to stay), and

normative (obligated) commitment and counts among the most frequently

used instruments (Mathieu et al., 2000; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In this

study, the OCQ features 15 statements, and the call center workers were

asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement on these

statements that represented their feelings and career intentions they may

have had about their company. The responses of call center workers were

assessed using a 5-point Likert scale where strongly disagree = 1, disagree =

2, neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5, which

represented how they felt about each statement. The items marked with (R)

were reversed to assess the responses of participants to negative statements.

The reverse statements were addressed in the SPSS tool by reversing their

scales.

The instrument for this study was the MLQ. The results of the MLQ

measured the relationship between leadership styles, effectiveness,

performance, and satisfaction in an organization. For this study, the call

center workers were asked 45 questions to assess the leadership style in

which they worked. Out of the 45 items, 20 assessed the transformational

style, four assessed the laissez-faire style, 12 assessed the transactional style,

and nine represented the outcomes of leadership. A 5-point Likert scale was

used to capture the responses where 1 was none at all and 5 was a great

deal.

Using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, the reliability of the OCQ and

MLQ items was estimated (see Table 2). For MLQ, the reliability alpha

coefficient of the 45 items came around .963, indicating the internal

consistency between the items. For OCQ, the alpha coefficient for the 15

items is .734, which, according to George and Mallery

(2021), is in an acceptable to excellent range.

Table 2

Reliability Statistics

Scale

Cronbach's alpha N of items

Leadership styles (MLQ) .963 45

Organizational commitment (OCQ) .734 15

Note. MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; OCQ =Organizational

Commitment

Questionnaire.

Presentation and Analysis of Data

The research study primarily examined the following question: What

is the relationship between leadership styles (transformational, transactional,

and laissez-faire) and outcomes, as measured by MLQ, and organizational

commitment, as measured by OCQ, of call center workers? To analyze and

answer this question, the primary null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis

were as follows:

Ho: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-

faire) and outcomes do not predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

Ha: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-

faire) and outcomes predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

For better understanding, the leadership styles and outcomes of

leadership were further broken down to their attributes to test their

relationship with the different attributes of organizational commitment.

Hypotheses Testing

A low value of the leadership style variable indicated a lack of

leadership or a laissez-faire style of leadership, and a high value of the

leadership style variable indicated a transformational and transactional style

of leadership. For hypothesis testing, the Pearson r correlation was used to

determine the relationship between leadership style and outcomes and the

organizational commitment level. The result of the Pearson r correlation test

suggested that correlation was significant at sample size = 166, r (166)

= .448, and p < .05. Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected, and a positive

linear relationship between leadership style and organizational commitment

level of call center workers exists. The results for the correlation between

leadership and the organizational commitment level of call center workers

are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

Correlations

Variable (statistics)

Organizational

commitment

Leadership

styles and

outcomes of

leadership

Organizational

commitment

Pearson

correlation

1 .448**

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Leadership styles and

outcomes of leadership

Pearson

correlation

.448** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Depicts the relationship between leadership styles, outcomes, and

organizational commitment on a scatter plot. A positive linear relationship

was noticed between leadership style, outcomes, and organizational

commitment. Linear regression was used to determine the positive

relationship between leadership style and organizational commitment level.

An examination of the residual scatter plot provided information about

assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity. The pile-up of residuals in

the center of the scatter plot can be seen trailing off from the center in a

normal distribution. The assumption of linearity was successfully met as the

scatter plot was in an inclined rectangular channel, not curved (Tabachnick

& Fidell, 2007). The assumption of homoscedasticity was met as the scatter

plot tends to be consistent throughout the beginning and ends with a few

outliers. Also, a transparent pattern of homoscedasticity was visible in the

scatter plot.

Table 4 displays the results of linear regression. A p-value of less than

0.05 indicated a significant relationship between leadership styles and

outcomes of leadership and organizational commitment of call center

workers. Leadership styles and outcomes accounted for (R²) 20.1% of the

variance in organizational commitment. The results of linear regression

suggested for one unit increase in leadership, there was a corresponding

increase of 0.38 units in organizational commitment.

Table 4

Results of Linear Regression of Leadership Style and Outcomes of

Leadership

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized

coefficients coefficients

Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.146 .207 10.347 <.05

Leadership

styles and

outcomes of

leadership

.375 .058 .448 6.421 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

The hypothesis was further analyzed to find a correlation between

different leadership styles namely transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire and outcomes of leadership with Organizational Commitment

levels.

Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Organizational

Commitment

Pearson r correlation test was conducted to determine the correlation

between transformational leadership style and Organizational Commitment.

The results for the correlation between transformational leadership and the

organizational commitment level of call center workers are summarized in

Table 5.

Table 5

Correlation Between Transformational Leadership and Organizational

Commitment Level

Correlations

Transformational

Organizational

commitment

Transformational Pearson

correlation

1 .415**

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Organizational

commitment

Pearson

correlation

.415** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The Pearson r correlation test result showed a significant positive

correlation at sample size = 166, r (166) = .415, and p < .05. Hence, a

positive linear relationship was observed between transformational

leadership style and organizational leadership commitment level of call

center workers.

Depicts the relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational commitment on a scatter plot. It can be noticed that there was

a positive linear relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational commitment. Linear regression was performed to determine

the positive relationship between transformational leadership style and the

organizational commitment level of call center workers. As noticed, the

assumption of linearity was successfully met as the scatter plot was

rectangular in a parallel upward channel and not curved (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2007). The assumption of homoscedasticity was met as the scatter

plot tends to be of the same width throughout. A distinct pattern of

homoscedasticity was visible in the scatter plot.

Table 6 displays the results of linear regression. Here, the p-value of

less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship between transformational

leadership and organizational commitment of call center workers.

Transformational leadership accounted for (R²) 17.3% of the variance in

organizational commitment. The results of linear regression suggested for

one unit increase in transformational leadership, there was a corresponding

increase of 0.29 units in organizational commitment.

Table 6

Results of Linear Regression of Constant Transformational

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized

coefficients coefficients

Std.

Model B error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.380 .188 12.662 <.05

Transformationa

.289 .050 .415 5.848 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

The relationship between attributes of transformational leadership

style – intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, idealized

attributes, idealized behaviors, and inspirational motivation was also

determined using linear regression analysis. Table 7 shows the results of the

relationship between intellectual stimulation and the outcome variable

organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 7

Relationship Between Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.777 .123 22.599 <.05

Transform

ational-IS

.197 .034 .413 5.813 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between intellectual simulation style of transformational leadership and

organizational commitment of call center workers. Table 8 shows the results

of the relationship between individual consideration and the outcome

variable organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 8

Relationship Between Individual Consideration (IC) and Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.225 .143 22.550 <.05

Transform

ational-IC

.064 .038 .131 1.688 .093

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

A p-value of more than 0.05 indicated no significant relationship

between individualized consideration style of transformational leadership

and organizational commitment of call center workers. Table 9 shows the

results of the relationship between idealized influence (attributed) and the

outcome variable organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 9

Relationship Between Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.798 .165 16.923 <.05

Transform

ationalIIA

.167 .041 .305 4.099 <.05

Note. IIA = idealized influence attributed. Dependent variable:

organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between Idealized Influence (Attributed) style of transformational leadership

and organizational commitment of call center workers. Table 10 shows the

results of the relationship between idealized influence (behavior) and the

outcome variable organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 10

Relationship Between Idealized Influence (Behavior) and Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.861 .129 22.182 <.05

Transform

ationalIIB

.161 .033 .354 4.841 <.05

Note. IIB= idealized influence behavior. Dependent variable: organizational

commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between Idealized Influence (Behavior) style of transformational leadership

and organizational commitment of call center workers. Table 11 shows the

results of the relationship between inspirational motivation and the outcome

variable organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 11

Relationship Between Inspirational Motivation (IM) and Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Beta

Transform .163 .042 .289 3.863 <.05 ational-IM

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between the Inspirational Motivation style of transformational leadership

and the organizational commitment of call center workers.

Model t Sig. B Std. error

1 )Constant( 2.823 .169 16.746 <.05

Relationship Between Transactional Leadership and Organizational

Commitment

Pearson r correlation test was conducted to determine a correlation

between transactional leadership style and Organizational Commitment. The

results for the correlation between transactional leadership and the

organizational commitment level of call center workers are summarized in

Table 12.

Table 12

Correlation Between Transactional Leadership and Organizational

Commitment Level of Call Center Workers

Correlations

Organizational

commitment

Transactional

leadership

Organizational

commitment

Pearson

correlation

1 .357**

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Transactional leadership Pearson

correlation

.357** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The Pearson r correlation test result indicated that correlation was

significant at sample size = 166, r (166) = .357, and p < .05. Hence, there

was a positive linear relationship between transactional leadership style and

organizational commitment level of call center workers.

Figure 4 depicts the relationship between transactional leadership and

organizational commitment on a scatter plot. A positive linear relationship

between transactional leadership and organizational commitment of call

center workers can be noticed here. Linear regression has been used to

determine the positive relationship between transactional leadership style

and the organizational commitment level of call center workers. As noticed

that the assumption of linearity was partially met as the scatter plot was

rectangular in a parallel upward channel, but there were many outliers

outside this channel. The assumption of homoscedasticity was marginally

met even though the scatter plot tends to be in a parallel channel. Still, there

are many outliers outside of this channel that is unfavorable for

homoscedasticity. A noticeable pattern of homoscedasticity is visible in the

scatter plot.

Table 13 displays the results of linear regression. A p-value of less

than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship between transactional

leadership style and organizational commitment of call center workers.

Transactional leadership accounted for (R²) 12.7% of the variance in

organizational commitment. The results of linear regression suggest for one

unit increase in transactional leadership; there is a corresponding increase of

0.24 units in organizational commitment.

Table 13

Linear Regression of Transactional Leadership

Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized

coefficients coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.346 .135 17.346 <.05

Transactional

leadership

.248 .036 .357 6.878 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.

The relationship between attributes of transactional leadership style -

conditional reward and management by exception – active and passive was

also determined using linear regression analysis. Table 14 shows the results

of the relationship between conditional reward and the outcome variable

organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 14

Relationship Between Conditional Reward (CR) and Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.580 .142 18.119 <.05

Transactio

nal-CR

.239 .037 .446 6.377 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between transactional leadership's Conditional Reward style and call center

workers' organizational commitment. Table 15 shows the results of the

relationship between management by exception and active and

organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 15

Relationship Between Management by Exception—Active and

Organizational Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized

coefficients coefficients

Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.168 .116 27.199 <.05

Transactional

-MEA

.089 .034 .202 2.642 <.05

Note. MEA = Management by exception active. Dependent variable:

organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between Management by Exception – Active transactional leadership style

and call center workers' organizational commitment. Table 16 shows the

results of the relationship between management by exception and the

outcome variable organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 16

Relationship Between Management by Exception—Passive and

Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized

coefficients

Standardized

coefficients t Sig.

B Std. error Beta

1 (Constant) 3.181 .156 20.373 <.05

Transactio

nal-MEP

.075 .041 .141 1.828 .069

Note. MEP = Management by exception passive. Dependent variable:

organizational commitment.

A p-value of more than 0.05 indicated no significant relationship

between Management by exception-Passive transactional leadership and

organizational commitment of call center workers.

Relationship Between Laissez-Faire Leadership and Organizational

Commitment

Pearson r correlation test was conducted to determine a correlation

between laissez-faire and organizational commitment. The results for the

correlation between laissez-faire leadership and the organizational

commitment level of call center workers are summarized in Table 17.

Table 17

Correlation Between Laissez-Faire and Organizational Commitment

Correlations

Variable (statistics)

Organizational

commitment

Laissez-

faire

Organizational

commitment

Pearson

correlation

1 -.002

Sig. (2-tailed) .978

N 166 166

Laissez-faire Pearson

correlation

-.002 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .978

N 166 166

The results of the Pearson r correlation test suggested that at sample

size = 166, r (166) = -0.002, and p <0.05, there was no correlation between

laissez-faire leadership and the organizational commitment level of call

center workers.

Figure 5 depicts the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

organizational commitment on a scatter plot. Linear regression was used to

ascertain the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and the

organizational commitment level of call center workers. As noticed that the

assumption of linearity was partially met as the scatter plot looked more like

a convergent channel rather than rectangular. It was also noticed that if the

outliers were ignored, a rectangular shape was visible. The assumption of

homoscedasticity was also marginal, as the scatter plot tends to be in a

parallel channel with the exception of a few outliers. The pattern of

homoscedasticity is partially visible in the scatter plot.

Table 18 displays the results of linear regression. A p-value of more

than 0.05 indicated there was no significant relationship between laissez-

faire leadership and organizational commitment of call center workers.

Laissez-faire leadership accounted for (R²) almost 0% of the variance in

organizational commitment. The linear regression results suggested that for

one unit increase in laissez-faire leadership, there was a corresponding

decrease of units in organizational commitment, which was not significant

and indicated that laissez-faire leadership cannot predict the commitment of

call center workers.

Table 18

Linear Regression of Laissez-Faire

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.464 .275 12.616 <.05

Laissezfaire -.006 .199 -.002 -.028 .978

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

Relationship Between Outcomes of Leadership and Organizational

Commitment

Pearson r correlation test was conducted to determine a correlation

between Outcomes of leadership and Organizational Commitment. The

results for the correlation between outcomes of leadership and the

organizational commitment level of call center workers are summarized in

Table 19.

Table 19

Outcomes of Leadership and Organizational Commitment Level of Call

Center Workers

Correlations

Organizational Outcomes

commitment leadership

Organizational

commitment

Pearson correlation 1 .457**

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Outcomes leadership Pearson correlation .457** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) <.05

N 166 166

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The result of the Pearson r correlation test suggests that correlation

was significant at sample size = 166, r (166) = .457, and p <0.05 indicating a

significant relationship between leadership outcomes and organizational

commitment level of call center workers.

Figure 6 depicts the relationship between leadership outcomes and

organizational commitment on a scatter plot. Linear regression was used to

determine the relationship between leadership outcomes and call center

workers' organizational commitment level. Examining residual scatter plots

provides information about assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity.

The pile-up of residuals in the center of the scatter plot was seen, trailing off

from the center in a normal distribution. The assumption of linearity was

successfully met as the scatter plot was in a linear upward parallel upward

channel (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The assumption of homoscedasticity

was fully met as the scatter plot tends to be in a parallel channel with the

exception of a few outliers, and the pattern of homoscedasticity is visible in

the scatter plot.

Table 20 displays the results of linear regression. A p-value of less

than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship between outcomes of leadership

and organizational commitment of call center workers. Outcomes of

leadership accounted for (R²) 20.9% of the variance in organizational

commitment. The linear regression results suggested that for one unit

increase in leadership outcomes, there is a corresponding increase of 0.32

units in organizational commitment, which is significant and indicates

leadership outcomes can predict the organizational commitment of call

center workers.

Table 20

Linear Regression of Outcomes Leadership

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.221 .191 11.608 <.05

Outcomes

leadership

.317 .048 .457 6.579 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

The relationship between attributes of outcomes of leadership –

satisfaction, effectiveness, and extra effort was also determined using linear

regression analysis. Table 21 shows the results of the relationship between

outcomes of leadership (satisfaction) and the outcome variable

organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 21

Relationship Between Outcomes of Leadership—Satisfaction (OOL-S) and

Organizational Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.305 .187 12.339 <.05

OOL-S .291 .046 .441 6.285 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between outcomes of leadership – satisfaction and organizational

commitment of call center workers. Table 22 shows the results of the

relationship between outcomes of leadership and the outcome variable

organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 22

Relationship Between Outcomes of Leadership (OOL-E) and Organizational

Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.414 .191 12.665 <.05

OOL-E .262 .047 .399 5.577 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between outcomes of leadership – effectiveness and organizational

commitment of call center workers. Table 23 shows the results of the

relationship between outcomes of leadership (extra effort) and the outcome

variable organizational commitment of call center workers.

Table 23

Relationship Between Outcomes of Leadership—Extra Effort (OOL-EE) and

Organizational Commitment of Call Center Workers

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.491 .162 15.330 <.05

OOL-EE .256 .042 .430 6.104 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: organizational commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between satisfaction and extra effort attributes of outcomes of leadership and

organizational commitment of call center workers. Table 24 shows the

results of the predictor variable transformational leadership and affective

organizational commitment.

Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Types of Organizational

Commitment

Table 24

Transformational Leadership and Affective Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Beta Sig.

1 (Constant) .593 .330 1.797 .074

Transformation .788 .087 .577 9.058 <.05 al

Note. Dependent variable: affective commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between transformational leadership style and affective organizational

commitment. Table 25 shows the results of the predictor variable

transformational leadership and normative organizational commitment.

Table 25

Transformational Leadership and Normative Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Model t B Std. error

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.794 .296 12.809 <.05

Transformation

-.030 .078 -.030 -.383 .702

Note. Dependent variable: normative commitment.

A p-value of more than 0.05 indicated no significant relationship

between transformational leadership style and normative organizational

commitment. Table 26 shows the results of the predictor variable

transformational leadership and continuance organizational commitment.

Table 26

Transformational Leadership and Continuance Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.794 .296 12.809 <.05

Transformation

-.030 .078 -.030 -.383 .702

Note. Dependent variable: continuance commitment.

A p-value of more than 0.05 indicated no significant relationship

between transformational leadership style and continuance organizational

commitment. Table 27 shows the results of the predictor variable

transactional leadership and affective organizational commitment.

Table 27

Transactional Leadership and Affective Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.321 .334 3.956 <.05

Transactional .626 .093 .467 6.754 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: Affective commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between transactional leadership style and affective organizational

commitment. Table 28 shows the results of the predictor variable

transactional leadership and normative organizational commitment.

Table 28

Transactional Leadership and Normative Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Model Beta

1 (Constant) 3.702 .277 13.383 <.05

Transactional -.005 .077 -.005 -.070 .944

Note. Dependent variable: normative commitment.

A p-value of more than 0.05 indicated no significant relationship

between transactional leadership style and normative organizational

commitment. Table 29 shows the results of the predictor variable

transactional leadership and continuance organizational commitment.

Table 29

Transactional Leadership and Continuance Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Mode

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

t Sig. B Std. Error

1 (Constant) 2.765 .292 9.467 <.05

Transactional .113 .081 .108 1.391 .166

Note. Dependent variable: continuance commitment.

A p-value of more than 0.05 indicated no significant relationship

between transactional leadership style and continuance organizational

commitment. Table 30 shows the results of outcomes of leadership and

affective organizational commitment.

Table 30

Outcomes of Leadership and Affective Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) .864 .364 2.372 .019

Outcomes

leadership

.682 .092 .503 7.446 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: affective commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between leadership outcomes and affective organizational commitment.

Table 31 shows results of the outcomes of leadership and normative

organizational commitment.

Table 31

Outcomes of Leadership and Normative Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.298 .307 10.742 <.05

Outcomes

leadership

.099 .077 .099 1.277 .203

Note. Dependent variable: normative commitment.

A p-value of more than 0.05 indicated no significant relationship

between leadership outcomes and normative organizational commitment.

Table 32 shows results of the outcomes of leadership and continuance

organizational commitment.

Table 32

Outcomes of Leadership and Continuance Organizational Commitment

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized coefficients

coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.501 .323 7.733 <.05

outcomes

leadership

.169 .081 .160 2.081 <.05

Note. Dependent variable: continuance commitment.

A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship

between leadership outcomes and the continuance of organizational

commitment.

Summary

This investigation intended to evaluate the connection between

leadership styles, outcomes, and call center workers' organizational

commitment. During the analysis, the sample population directly managed

by managers was targeted to limit the skewness in the result. The hypothesis

presented was whether the leadership styles and outcomes measured by

MLQ predicted the organizational commitment of the call center workers.

The correlation between leadership style outcomes and organizational

commitment was determined using the Pearson r correlation. The correlation

coefficient between these variables is .448 with a p-value < .05,

demonstrating that the correlation was significant and positive. Hence, the

null hypothesis was rejected, and a positive linear relationship between

leadership style and outcomes of leadership and organizational commitment

level of call center workers exists.

The hypothesis study was further examined, and the results of the

different leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes of leadership with organizational commitment were further

tested. Starting with the transformational leadership style, the Pearson r

correlation was tested, indicating a correlation was significant at r = 0 .415

and p < .001. Hence, there is a positive linear relationship between

transformational leadership style and the organizational commitment level of

call center workers. The Transactional leadership style and leadership

outcomes also showed a positive linear relationship with organizational

commitment with r = 0.357 and p < .05, r =0 .457, and p < .05, respectively.

On the other hand, the laissez-faire style has no relationship with

organizational commitment, with r =-.002 and p >0.05.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The call center industry is instrumental in servicing the consumer in

many facets of service-oriented presales and after-sales support (Clark et al.,

2019). Call center workers deal with many stressors like working longer

hours, slow career growth, and sometimes night shift duties, hindering work-

life balance (Akanji, 2013). It is essential for workers working in such a

stressful environment to have an excellent leader to motivate and move the

workers toward their goals (Antonakis & House, 2013). In this quantitative

predictive nonexperimental study using multiple regression analysis, I aimed

to examine the relationship between leadership styles (transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire) and outcomes of leadership with call center

workers' organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is one essential component that makes an

organization successful (Azeez et al., 2016). Several studies have assessed

employee commitment as a forecaster of employee retention (Allen &

Meyer, 1990). An organization can retain a significant percentage of its

skilled employees. In that case, it ensures the complete stability of the

organization is sustained, both in terms of productivity and financial

viability (Faloye, 2014). Organizational commitment is one of the top

concepts in managerial literature that organizations use as a guiding tool due

to its significance regarding performance and effectiveness (Nath &

Agrawal, 2015). According to Bass (2013), leadership styles play a vital role

in leader-follower relationships. For this study, the FRLT framework was

used to measure the leadership styles and outcomes of leadership.

The FRLT is an established management theory that symbolizes

classifications of leadership behaviors: transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Bass (2013) stated that transformational

leaders inspire, motivate, encourage, provide feedback, and pursue the

organization above their personal needs. Burns (1978) noted that

transactional leaders emphasize extrinsic rewards and avoid unnecessary

risks, impacting workers-employer relations. According to Savitha and

Vijila, (2017) an efficient leader possesses transactional or transformational

leadership styles. These leadership styles are closely related to

organizational outcomes: satisfaction, efficiency, and extra effort. Similarly,

leadership can have a negative or no effect on employees' organizational

commitment, as in the case of laissez-faire leadership. The laissez-faire style

of leadership includes avoidance of responsibilities (Skogstad et al., 2014),

which is the reason why "laissez-faire has been consistently found to be the

least satisfying and least effective management style" (Bass, 2013, p 443).

The problem statement, related theory, data collection, and

measurement instruments were discussed in detail in the previous chapters.

For this study, the leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire style of leadership) and outcomes of leadership were the

predictor variables, and organizational commitment was the outcome

variable. This study's inclusion criteria were adults working inside a call

center environment reporting to a manager. A total of five demographics, 45

MLQs, and 15 OCQ questions were distributed via SurveyMonkey surveys.

A total of 166 responses were evaluated using multiple regressions and

descriptive statistics in Chapter 4. This chapter addresses the interpretation

of the hypotheses, limitations in the study, and future recommendations.

Interpretation of the Findings in Relation to Theoretical Framework

In this section, I discuss the insights gained on the RQ and different

hypotheses from Chapter 4 results. The acumens here are presented on the

N = 166 analyzed in the previous section.

The RQ for this study addressed if there was a significant relationship

between leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and leadership outcomes with organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers. To analyze this question, null

and alternative hypotheses were created.

H0: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and outcomes do not predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

Ha: Leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire)

and organizational outcomes predict organizational commitment (affective,

normative, continuance) in call center workers.

The Pearson r correlation test rejected the null hypothesis with a

coefficient value of r (166) = .448, and p < .05 indicated a positive linear

relationship between leadership style and outcomes of leadership with an

organizational commitment level of call center workers. This demonstrated

that leadership styles and outcomes predict organizational commitment for

call center workers.

The hypothesis was further examined, and transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles were separately analyzed to

gain insight into which leadership styles predict organizational commitment

better. After analysis, I found that the organizational commitment of call

center workers had a positive relationship with transformational and

transactional leadership styles with the Pearson r correlation of r (166)

= .415 and p < .05 and r (166) = .357 and p < .05 respectively and a negative

relationship with the laissez-faire style of leadership with the Pearson r

correlation of r (166) = -.002. Examining transformational and transactional

leadership styles using the Pearson r correlation test suggests that

transformational and transactional leadership styles can be used to predict

organizational commitment. However, the investigation of laissez-faire style

suggested that it cannot be used to predict the organizational commitment of

call center workers.

Similarly, leadership outcomes were analyzed to determine

relationships with the organizational commitment of workers. When the

hypothesis was tested between outcomes of leadership and organizational

commitment of call center workers, the Pearson r correlation was .457 and p

< .05, demonstrating a significant relationship between the organizational

commitment of call center workers with outcomes of leadership.

Organizational commitment had the highest positive correlation with

leadership outcomes, followed by transformational and transactional

leadership, indicating the importance of leadership outputs, especially

satisfaction and extra effort of workers, and the lowest correlation with

laissez-faire leadership. The results also indicated that a transformational

style of leadership is slightly more effective than a transactional style of

leadership in a call center work environment. Transformational leadership

had a higher correlation of 41.5% than transactional leadership of 35.7%

with the organizational commitment of call center employees, which showed

that the call center workers tended to prefer a more innovation-oriented

culture than goal-oriented (see Long et al., 2014). Also indicated is that a

transformational leadership style is more effective than a transactional style

of leadership in a call center work environment; the call center worker feels

they want a leader who inspires, motivates, encourages, and provides

feedback (Skogstad et al., 2014).

To gain further insights into the research, it is important to understand

how the individual attributes of leadership style and leadership outcomes

correlated with the organizational commitment of call center employees. The

regression analysis demonstrated the attributes, namely intellectual

stimulation, idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior),

and inspirational motivation of transformational leadership, conditional

reward and management by exception - active of transactional leadership,

and the attributes, namely satisfaction, effectiveness, and extra effort of

outcomes of leadership, can significantly predict the organizational

commitment of call center workers. On the other hand, the attributes, namely

individualized consideration of transformational leadership and management

by exception - passive of transactional leadership, did not significantly

predict the organizational commitment of call center employees. The

relationship of organizational commitment of call center workers with

different leadership styles suggests that call center workers prefer a leader

who inspires, motivates, encourages, and provides feedback and do not

prefer passive and laissez-faire leadership styles (see Judge & Piccolo,

2004).

The leadership styles, namely transformational and transactional

leadership, significantly predicted affective organizational commitment and

did not significantly predict normative and continuance organizational

commitment. The significant positive relationship of leadership styles with

affective organizational commitment suggests that call center workers have

positive feelings of identification with an attachment to and involvement in

the workplace under transformational and transactional leadership (see Allen

& Meyer, 1990). The relationship of leadership styles with normative and

continuance organizational commitment was not significant, which indicates

that the call center workers do not feel obligated to remain a member of the

organization and do not feel it will cost them adversely if they leave the

organization (see Allen & Meyer, 1990). Leadership outcomes have a

significantly positive relationship with affective and continuance

organizational commitment, which suggests that call center workers identify

with the organization and are aware of the cost of leaving the organization

(see Allen & Meyer, 1990). The outcomes of leadership did not have a

significantly positive relationship with normative organizational

commitment, indicating that call center workers do not feel obligated to

remain a member of the organization (see Allen & Meyer, 1990).

The null hypothesis was also rejected through linear regression, where

a p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant relationship between

leadership styles and the organizational commitment of call center workers.

Linear regression tests also indicated a positive linear relationship between

organizational commitment and leadership styles (transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire) and leadership outcomes. The assumption of

linearity and homoscedasticity is successfully met, as seen in the scatter

plots in Chapter 4, which further validated the study.

Strengths

The study has many strengths. First, the survey selected for measuring

organizational commitment and leadership styles contained questions

representing the respective commitments and leadership styles that were

presented in this research. For both MLQ and OCQ, the reliability alpha

coefficient was more significant than .7, which proves the internal

consistencies of the items according to George and Mallery (2003).

Another strength of the research was the demographics study. The

participants were asked different demographic questions based on their age,

gender, income, and region. It can be deduced from the distribution of the

participants that these demographic parameters can represent a sample that

captures the behavior of the large population working in call centers.

Limitations

There were a few limitations to this study. First was the limited

sample size of the participants who filled out the survey. Only 166 responses

were recorded during this research. Although N = 166 satisfied the minimum

criteria of the sample size required, it was not large enough to average out

the outliers. An extension of the limitation could be misunderstanding the

meaning of the measurement (Likert-scale) scale to record the responses. It

is possible that not all the intended behaviors in this study were captured,

leading to a higher variance and error rate. The second limitation was the

instruments used in the study. While OCQ and MLQ are considered a

standard to measure organizational commitment and leadership styles,

respectively, it is possible that the individual might not have understood the

contextual meaning of the survey presented to them, thus creating bias in the

result.

Another limitation of the study is the dynamic workplace environment

for call center workers, which is changing quickly depending upon the

changing social trends, technological trends, and business practices adopted

worldwide. There was a significant change in workplace practices and

culture after the COVID pandemic as workers were working from home,

which changed the way of communication and operations within every

major industry. This means that a leadership style that is currently working

may or may not keep up with the dynamic nature of the call center industry

in the future. It is important to conduct surveys regularly to determine how

call center workers are responding to the leadership styles and outcomes of

leadership.

Recommendations

The call center industry is an unexplored sector regarding leadership

and its impact on workers' commitment and other attributes, such as

productivity, attitude, and job satisfaction. As per the findings of this

research, I recommend that all call center leaders adopt a transformational

leadership style as it has a maximum positive effect on a worker's

organizational commitment.

Although transformational leadership is a vast topic, training courses

focusing on the three core aspects of transformational leadership,

individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and charisma, are a

step in the right direction. The training curriculum should include ideas that

encourage mentorship of workers as this will establish an interpersonal

relationship between leaders and workers that will further strengthen

workers' trust in the company, ultimately leading to improved organizational

commitment (Idris & Manganaro, 2017). Also, an ideal training curriculum

should focus on book knowledge and practical learning, as this will allow a

leader to successfully adapt to challenging circumstances.

Along with introductory training courses, companies need to realize

that workers' expectations are continuously evolving with improving modern

technology and the workplace environment (Harms et al., 2017). Therefore,

companies should create a cooperative work environment that builds on the

leader-follower relationship that will allow workers to address their concerns

appropriately to the leaders and ensure the active participation of workers.

Companies should enable leaders to attend workshops and specialized

training to hone their skills further, enabling leaders to adapt to and

successfully meet workers' expectations.

To further improve workers' organizational commitment, companies

need to take workers' feedback about the leader through periodic surveys, as

it will provide essential insights into the leader's leadership style (Hsu et al.,

2019). Leaders can use these insights to determine their strengths and

weaknesses, and through specialized training courses and workshops, leaders

can improve upon their weaknesses. It will also allow leaders to determine

the expectation of workers from the leadership and accordingly formulate

strategies and tactics for the short term and long term so that workers' goals

and expectations are in perfect alignment with the organization's goals and

expectations.

Transactional leadership style also has a significant effect on

organizational commitment. Therefore, a leader can also incorporate some

aspects of the transactional and transformational leadership styles. These

aspects include rewarding workers for work such as exceptional performance

and meeting deadlines. Rewarding workers for their efforts further

encourages them to put in the extra effort and allows them to meet their

financial goals (Sayadi, 2016). Giving workers such opportunities result in

lower turnover rates and increased organizational commitment.

Leadership outcomes have a significant positive relationship with the

organizational commitment of call center workers. The outcomes give a

roadmap for call center companies to adopt a leadership style that can

provide a maximum outcome in terms of satisfaction and extra effort of

workers as it directly correlates with the organizational commitment of call

center workers.

Recommendations for Future Research

For future research, the researcher might focus on a micro population,

such as workers with experience of 5 or more years, 10 or more years, and so

on so that leaders can adapt to these groups. A researcher might also focus on

fresh recruits or workers with less than 2 years of experience to study which

leadership style works best across workers with less experience. Future

researchers can study individual components of each leadership style and find

their impact on organizational commitment, which will further help design

perfect training courses for leaders in the future. Lastly, the researcher can

add more dependent and independent variables so that further clarity can be

achieved on how leadership styles translate into organizational outputs and

workers' efficiency, satisfaction, commitment, and retention.

Implications

The different leadership styles affect several work-related variables

like organizational commitment, job satisfaction, etc., of the personnel

(Cohen, 2007). Gupta and Beehr (1979) led some of the earliest empirical

research into the effects of professional fulfillment and a leader's style on

workers. The social influence is to create positive social change by assisting

the employers with their communication skills concerning the workers-

employer relationship and recognizing and listening to their concerns. As the

demographics indicate, workers in the call center industry come from diverse

backgrounds and cultures, which may lead to miscommunication or a

mismatch of ideas between workers and employers. A good leader should

recognize and rectify these intricate stressors. When the employer recognizes

the stressors, the results can foster decreased turnover rates and improve

profitability and productivity in the organization (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013).

The leaders' style and relationship with other workers can significantly affect

the work environment within any organization. The results of this study can

encourage the call center organization and leaders to learn and benefit from

the positive correlation between good leadership and organizational

outcomes with increased organizational commitment. The leaders can

benefit from the results of this study by understanding how different aspects

of leadership styles like individualized consideration, intellectual

stimulation, reward, and communication, and organizational outcomes like

satisfaction and extra effort can affect the call center workers and how

leaders utilize this information to create a good work environment for the

workers thereby positively improve their organizational commitment. It has

been mentioned by Cassar et al. (2017) that the relationship between workers

and their leader is crucial to the success of the organization.

Conclusion

The relationship between leadership styles – transformational and

transactional and outcomes of leadership with organizational commitment in

a call center environment has been adequately researched. The data was

collected through a survey, and the response of call center workers' were

measured on a Likert scale where: strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2,

Neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5

represents how they feel about each statement. The data was then analyzed

using correlation and linear regression to determine any significant

relationship between leadership styles and leadership outcomes with call

center workers' organizational commitment.

The results indicated that transformational and transactional leadership

styles significantly correlate with call center workers' organizational

commitment. Out of the leadership styles, transformational leadership has

the highest positive relationship with organizational commitment.

Leadership outcomes such as satisfaction and extra effort had a significant

positive relationship with call center workers' organizational commitment.

This study demonstrates the impact of active leadership

(transformational and transactional leadership) and outcomes of leadership

on call center workers' organizational commitment. Additionally, it indicates

that any leadership is preferable to none when it comes to employees'

organizational commitment.

The Relationship Between Leadership Styles And Call Center Workers Organizational Commitment

Students also viewed