The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. To this end, a theoretical framework regarding transformational leadership and organizational commitment was created and then an application was performed on bank employees in Kars. The results revealed relations between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. Furthermore, results regarding awareness point out an awareness in continuance commitment, which is one of the sub-dimensions of organizational commitment, in terms of whether management task exists or not.
Developments and changes emerging in every area in recent years have also spread to leadership area, making way for an increase in the significance of transformational leadership, a type of leadership which focuses on changes.
If leaders take notice of individual development needs of their followers, encourage their followers intellectually, put forward high expectations, provide the acceptance of goals as a whole, behave as a role model, and create a shared vision for future, then they can be said to show transformational behaviors. A leader with transformational leadership behaviors aims to transform, encourage and inspire his/her followers for them to perform better than expected [
It is no doubt that an employee who works with a good leader will feel more satisfied, leading to an increase in his/her affective commitment to the corporation. Stronger affective commitment will lead to better performance and bring success to corporation, as well. For an employee with high commitment will embrace his/her job and will always do his/her best to go beyond expectations.
This study aims to determine the relationship between the sense of transformational leadership, which has significance for reaching success under tumultuous environmental conditions of our day, and organizational commitment. Within this aim, a study has been conducted on the bank employees working in Kars.
The term “transformational leadership”, which emerged for the first time in Mc Gregor’s Burns’ book “Leadership” in 1978, has been later developed by Bernard Bass et al. as the theory of transformational leadership [
Sense of transformational leadership is generally regarded as an effective leadership style. Studies have revealed lots of positive effects of transformational leadership. Sense of transformational leadership indicates a multi-dimensional leadership style, which puts emphasis on common values and needs rather than individual values and needs of followers, and which encourages its followers to perform beyond expectations [
Leadership is of much importance when it comes to activating the followers, benefiting from the resources, organizational innovation, adaptation and performance in accordance with the mission of the organization [
1) Charisma (Idealized Effect): Charisma is the power obtained as a result of the changes in the perceptions and attributions of the followers by the properties and behaviors of the leader, by the situation or conditions of the leadership and by the needs of the followers themselves and this power can activate the followers for the leader [
Charismatic leaders bear certain properties such as self-confidence, vision-holding, ability to express his/her own visions to others clearly, having strong beliefs in his/her visions, extraordinary behaviors, being perceived as the one who leads the change, sensibility to the environment [
2) Inspiration: Inspiration motivates employees to reach organization’s aims successfully and, thus supports leaders in implementing strategies [
3) Intellectual Encouragement: Intellectual encouragement abolishes traditional methods for problem solving and activates employees’ minds to analyze the business problems comprehensively and solve them [
4) Individual Attention: Individual attention emerges when a leader pays attention to individual needs of the followers, when s/he helps them improve their abilities and potentials, and s/he puts importance in their emotions [
Organizational commitment is defined as “the strength of an individual’s ties with the organization” or “behavioral actions resulting from the commitment of individuals” [
The most widely accepted definition of organizational commitment is “the relative strength of an individual’s ties with to an organization,” suggested by Mowday, Steers & Porter (1979) [
The most accepted classification regarding the organizational commitment types in literature is the organizational commitment classification developed by Meyer and Allen. They have analyzed this classification as affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment [
Affective Commitment: It indicates the emotional commitment of an employee to the organization and his/her integration with it. The motivation for an employee to stay in that organization is the emotional commitment and identification of him/her with the goals of the organization. Employees who stay in an organization with strong affective commitment continue to work there not because they need it but because they want it [
The employee regards him/herself as a constituent of the organization and therefore thinks that it is necessary that s/he stays there.
Continuance Commitment: The organizational commitment from a financial aspect brings along the continuance commitment. This type of commitment emphasizes the commitment in proportion to the investment size that an employee has made in the organization. In this sense, continuance commitment points out the awareness of an employee on the costs that s/he will have to bear in case of leaving the job.
Normative Commitment: It highlights the sense of responsibility that an employee feels towards his/her organization to stay there. This type of commitment helps individuals to show some behavioral actions not because they are asked to do so for their personal benefits but because they believe that it is righteous and ethical [
The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between sense of transformational leadership and organizational commitment. The points below are taken as basis in accordance with this main aim:
-To determine the transformational level perception of the employees and their organizational commitment level,
-To determine whether there is a difference in terms of demographical variants between transformational leadership and its sub-components, and organizational commitment and its sub-components among bank employees.
The population of this study consists of approximately 185 bank-employees working in Kars. A 5% of margin of error within the 95% of confidence limit from this population was assumed, and the sample size was measured as 125 accordingly [
Data-acquisition tool for this study is the survey form. The survey consists of three parts. The first part includes questions regarding demographic variants. The second part of the survey has been developed to assess the transformational leadership. The survey has been obtained with the translation of the transformational leadership scale into Turkish which has been developed by Podsakoff in order to measure the transformational leadership and for which factor analysis has been made [
As the reliability of the data is the basic principle of the scientific study and the indicator of the reliability of the data-acquisition tool, the survey has been subjected to reliability test. The results have been evaluated in accordance with the reliability result which has been stated by Özdamar [
In
The results of the reliability analysis applied for the sub-components of transformational leadership scale indicate that Cronbach Alpha values range from 0.648 to 0.920, and that the components “providing vision-inspi- ration and being a proper role model”, “providing the acceptance of group aims” “encouraging intellectually” are found to be highly-reliable, whereas “having high expectations for success” and “paying individual attention” are quite-reliable.
In
Sub-Components | Number of Articles | Cronbach Alpha Value | Reliability Result |
---|---|---|---|
Transformational Leadership | 23 | 0.961 | Highly Reliable |
Providing Vision-Inspiration and Being a Proper Role Model | 8 | 0.920 | Highly Reliable |
Providing Acceptance of Group Aims | 5 | 0.878 | Highly Reliable |
Encouraging Intellectually | 4 | 0.804 | Highly Reliable |
Paying Individual Attention | 3 | 0.772 | Quite Reliable |
Having High Expectations of Success | 3 | 0.648 | Quite Reliable |
Sub-Components | Number of Articles | Cronbach Alpha | Reliability Result |
---|---|---|---|
Organizational Commitment | 24 | 0.908 | Highly Reliable |
Affective Commitment | 8 | 0.837 | Highly Reliable |
Continuance Commitment | 8 | 0.865 | Highly Reliable |
Normative Commitment | 8 | 0.834 | Highly Reliable |
As can be seen by looking at
Averages of the answers given by employees for each article are shown in
According to
The average of the sub-component “providing the acceptance of group aims” is (
The average of sub-component “encouraging intellectually” is (
The average of sub-component “paying individual attention” is (
The average of sub-component “having high expectations for success” is (
When taken all these findings as a whole, institution leaders generally carry transformational leadership properties in a “high” level and they are perceived to show attitudes and behaviors of transformational leadership.
Number of People (N: 127) | Percentage | |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 70 | 55.1 |
Female | 57 | 44.9 |
Age 18 - 24 | 7 | 5.5 |
Age 25 - 34 | 96 | 75.6 |
Age 35 - 44 | 22 | 17.3 |
Age 45 - 54 | 2 | 1.6 |
Marital Status | ||
Married | 65 | 51.2 |
Single | 62 | 48.8 |
Educational Background | ||
Highschool/2-Year College | 22 | 17.3 |
University | 92 | 72.4 |
Master | 12 | 9.4 |
PhD | 1 | 0.08 |
Title | ||
Executive Officer | 12 | 9.4 |
Assistant Executive Officer | 14 | 11 |
Supervisor | 6 | 4.7 |
Assistant Supervisor | 3 | 2.4 |
Officer | 92 | 72.4 |
Work Experience at Bank | ||
1 - 5 Years | 50 | 39.4 |
6 - 10 Years | 59 | 45.5 |
11 - 20 Years | 17 | 13.4 |
21 - 30 Years | 1 | 0.8 |
Management Task | ||
Yes | 16 | 12.6 |
No | 111 | 87.4 |
Chose Willingly to Work at Bank | ||
Yes | 110 | 86.6 |
No | 17 | 13.4 |
Satisfied with Working in Kars | ||
Yes | 89 | 70.1 |
No | 38 | 29.9 |
Sub-Components | Average | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|
Transformational Leadership | 3.55 | 0.85 |
Providing Vision-Inspiration and Being a Proper Role Model | 3.58 | 0.93 |
Providing the Acceptance of Group Aims | 3.56 | 0.94 |
Encouraging Intellectually | 3.47 | 0.94 |
Paying Individual Attention | 3.44 | 1.00 |
Having High Expectations for Success | 3.70 | 0.80 |
Sub-Components | Average | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|
Organizational Commitment | 3.58 | 0.61 |
Affective Commitment | 3.60 | 0.74 |
Continuance Commitment | 3.54 | 0.75 |
Normative Commitment | 3.59 | 0.74 |
Sub Components | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.Transformational Leadership | - | |||||||||
2. Providing Vision-Inspiration and Being a Proper Role Model | 0.980** | - | ||||||||
3. Providing the Acceptance of Group Aims | 0.961** | 0.940** | - | |||||||
4. Encouraging Intellectually | 0.935** | 0.901** | 0.869** | - | ||||||
5. Paying Individual Attention | 0.846** | 0.792** | 0.770** | 0.760** | - | |||||
6. Having High Expectations for Success | 0.731** | 0.667** | 0.657** | 0.628** | 0.510** | - | ||||
7. Organizational Commitment | 0.420** | 0.405** | 0.446** | 0.395** | 0.365** | 0.231** | - | |||
8. Affective Commitment | 0.437** | 0.426** | 0.461** | 0.409** | 0.391** | 0.220** | 0.790** | - | ||
9. Continuance Commitment | 0.324** | 0.294** | 0.323** | 0.305** | 0.311** | 0.239** | 0.789** | 0.366** | - | |
10. Normative Commitment | 0.268** | 0.272** | 0.308** | 0.253** | 0.192 | 0.105** | 0.870** | 0.570** | 0.563** | - |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
The average of sub-component “continuance commitment” is (
The average of sub-component normative commitment is (
Affective commitment, a sub-component of organizational commitment, has been found to have the highest average. The lowest average, on the other hand, is the continuance commitment.
In order to analyze the bilateral relations between transformational leadership with its sub-components, and organizational commitment with its sub-components, Pearson correlation analysis has been applied. Findings are presented in
There is a positive moderate relationship between transformational leadership scale and organizational commitment scale. There are positive moderate and weak relations between transformational leadership scale and organizational commitment sub-components. The strength of the relations between transformational leadership scale and organizational commitment sub-components ranges from 0.268 to 0.437.
There are positive moderate and weak relations between transformational leadership scale sub-components and organizational commitment scale sub-components. The strength of the relations between these sub-compo- nents ranges from 0.105 to 0.461.
In order to determine the differences between demographical variants, independent sample t test and one-way analysis of variance have been applied. Results are presented in Tables 7-10.
According to the result of independent sample t test, there is not any significant difference between females and males in terms of participation level to transformational leadership and its sub-components (p > 0.05).
According to the result of independent sample t test, there is not any significant difference between the existence and non-existence of management task in terms of participation level to transformational leadership and its sub-components (p > 0.05).
According to the result of independent sample t test, there is not any significant difference between males and females in terms of participation level to organizational commitment and its sub-components (p > 0.05).
While there is not any significant difference between existence or non-existence of management task for organizational commitment scale and affective commitment and normative commitment sub-components (p > 0.05), there is a significant difference for continuance commitment (p < 0.05). Participation level of employees
Sub-Components | Gender | N | Average | Standard Deviation | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transformational Leadership | Male | 70 | 3.60 | 0.85 | 0.611 | 0.543 |
Female | 57 | 3.50 | 0.86 | |||
Providing Vision-Inspiration and Being a Proper Role Model | Male | 70 | 3.63 | 0.90 | 0.704 | 0.483 |
Female | 57 | 3.52 | 0.97 | |||
Providing the Acceptance of Group Aims | Male | 70 | 3.57 | 0.95 | 0.143 | 0.886 |
Female | 57 | 3.55 | 0.94 | |||
Encouraging Intellectually | Male | 70 | 3.50 | 0.94 | 0.245 | 0.807 |
Female | 57 | 3.45 | 0.94 | |||
Paying Individual Attention | Male | 70 | 3.55 | 0.97 | 1.343 | 0.182 |
Female | 57 | 3.30 | 1.03 | |||
Having High Expectations for Success | Male | 70 | 3.73 | 0.83 | 0.474 | 0.636 |
Female | 57 | 3.67 | 0.77 |
Sub-Components | Management Task | N | Average | Standard Deviation | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transformational Leadership | Yes | 16 | 3.54 | 0.95 | −0.052 | 0.958 |
No | 111 | 3.56 | 0.84 | |||
Providing Vision-Inspiration and Being a Proper Role Model | Yes | 16 | 3.48 | 0.99 | −0.438 | 0.662 |
No | 111 | 3.59 | 0.92 | |||
Providing the Acceptance of Group Aims | Yes | 16 | 3.58 | 1.12 | −0.065 | 0.948 |
No | 111 | 3.56 | 0.92 | |||
Encouraging Intellectually | Yes | 16 | 3.47 | 0.99 | −0.026 | 0.979 |
No | 111 | 3.48 | 0.93 | |||
Paying Individual Attention | Yes | 16 | 3.50 | 0.97 | 0.274 | 0.784 |
No | 111 | 3.43 | 1.01 | |||
Having High Expectations for Success | Yes | 16 | 3.79 | 0.89 | 0.500 | 0.618 |
No | 111 | 3.68 | 0.79 |
Sub-Components | Gender | N | Average | Standard Deviation | T | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational Commitment | Male | 70 | 3.58 | 0.64 | −0.019 | 0.985 |
Female | 57 | 3.58 | 0.57 | |||
Affective Commitment | Male | 70 | 3.59 | 0.80 | −0.232 | 0.817 |
Female | 57 | 3.62 | 0.68 | |||
Continuance Commitment | Male | 70 | 3.57 | 0.82 | 0.393 | 0.695 |
Female | 57 | 3.51 | 0.67 | |||
Normative Commitment | Male | 70 | 3.58 | 0.74 | −0.210 | 0.834 |
Female | 57 | 3.60 | 0.75 |
Sub-Components | Management Task | N | Average | Standard Deviation | T | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational Commitment | Yes | 16 | 3.36 | 0.71 | −1.554 | 0.123 |
No | 111 | 3.61 | 0.59 | |||
Affective Commitment | Yes | 16 | 3.53 | 1.05 | −0.401 | 0.689 |
No | 111 | 3.61 | 0.70 | |||
Continuance Commitment | Yes | 16 | 3.17 | 0.98 | −2.185 | 0.035* |
No | 111 | 3.60 | 0.70 | |||
Normative Commitment | Yes | 16 | 3.37 | 0.68 | −1.269 | 0.207 |
No | 111 | 3.62 | 0.75 |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
with a management tasks to “continuance commitment” sub-component is lower than of employees without management task.
Data regarding the Anova analysis applied for transformational leadership and its sub-components are presented in
According to the result of the analysis of one-way variance, there is not any significant difference between employees in different age groups in terms of participation level to transformational leadership and its sub- components (p > 0.05).
According to the result of analysis of one-way variance, there is not any significant difference between employees in different age groups in terms of participation level to transformational leadership and its sub-com- ponents (p > 0.05).
Findings with regard to the One-way Anova Analyses can be seen in
According to the result of the analysis of one-way variance, there is not any significant difference between employees in different age groups in terms of participation level to organization commitment and its sub-com- ponents (p > 0.05).
According to the result of analysis of one-way variance, there is not any significant difference between employees with different educational backgrounds in terms of participation level to organizational commitment and its sub-categories (p > 0.05).
This study, which has been conducted to determine the relationship between transformational leadership and
Sub-Components | Age | N | Average | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transformational Leadership | Between 18 - 24 Years | 7 | 3.48 | 0.88 | 0.174 | 0.914 |
Between 25 - 34 Years | 96 | 3.54 | 0.86 | |||
Between 35 - 44 Years | 22 | 3.60 | 0.86 | |||
Between 45 - 54 Years | 2 | 3.93 | 0.09 | |||
Providing Vision-Inspiration and Being a Proper Role Model | Between 18 - 24 Years | 7 | 3.54 | 0.95 | 0.055 | 0.983 |
Between 25 - 34 Years | 96 | 3.57 | 0.94 | |||
Between 35 - 44 Years | 22 | 3.61 | 0.94 | |||
Between 45 - 54 Years | 2 | 3.81 | 0.09 | |||
Providing the Acceptance of Group Aims | Between 18 - 24 Years | 7 | 3.57 | 0.85 | 0.578 | 0.630 |
Between 25 - 34 Years | 96 | 3.53 | 0.93 | |||
Between 35 - 44 Years | 22 | 3.61 | 1.04 | |||
Between 45 - 54 Years | 2 | 4.40 | 0.57 | |||
Encouraging Intellectually | Between 18 - 24 Years | 7 | 3.39 | 1.26 | 0.175 | 0.913 |
Between 25 - 34 Years | 96 | 3.46 | 0.92 | |||
Between 35 - 44 Years | 22 | 3.53 | 0.97 | |||
Between 45 - 54 Years | 2 | 3.88 | 0.18 | |||
Paying Individual Attention | Between 18 - 24 Years | 7 | 3.38 | 1.01 | 0.172 | 0.915 |
Between 25 - 34 Years | 96 | 3.41 | 1.03 | |||
Between 35 - 44 Years | 22 | 3.52 | 0.93 | |||
Between 45 - 54 Years | 2 | 3.83 | 0.24 | |||
Having High Expectations for Success | Between 18 - 24 Years | 7 | 3.38 | 0.95 | 0.387 | 0.762 |
Between 25 - 34 Years | 96 | 3.72 | 0.83 | |||
Between 35 - 44 Years | 22 | 3.71 | 0.63 | |||
Between 45 - 54 Years | 2 | 3.67 | 0.00 |
Sub-Components | Educational Background | N | Average | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transformational Leadership | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.83 | 0.81 | 0.174 | 0.914 |
University | 92 | 3.48 | 0.85 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.76 | 0.77 | |||
PhD | 1 | 1.91 | ||||
Providing Vision-Inspiration and Being a Proper Role Model | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.84 | 0.87 | 0.055 | 0.983 |
University | 92 | 3.51 | 0.94 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.81 | 0.79 | |||
PhD | 1 | 1.88 | ||||
Providing the Acceptance of Group Aims | High-school/2 year college | 22 | 3.87 | 0.86 | 0.578 | 0.630 |
University | 92 | 3.48 | 0.95 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.75 | 0.80 | |||
PhD | 1 | 1.80 | ||||
Encouraging Intellectually | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.85 | 0.91 | 0.175 | 0.913 |
University | 92 | 3.36 | 0.92 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.79 | 0.85 | |||
PhD | 1 | 1.75 | ||||
Paying Individual Attention | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.70 | 0.98 | 0.172 | 0.915 |
University | 92 | 3.38 | 1.00 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.53 | 0.99 | |||
PhD | 1 | 1.67 | ||||
Having High Expectations for Success | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.82 | 0.95 | 0.37 | 0.762 |
University | 92 | 3.66 | 0.77 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.83 | 0.73 | |||
PhD | 1 | 2.67 |
Sub-Components | Age | N | Average | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational Commitment | 18 - 24 | 7 | 3.65 | 0.40 | 0.437 | 0.727 |
25 - 34 | 96 | 3.57 | 0.62 | |||
35 - 44 | 22 | 3.55 | 0.64 | |||
45 - 54 | 2 | 4.04 | 0.18 | |||
Affective Commitment | 18 - 24 | 7 | 3.84 | 0.41 | 0.807 | 0.492 |
25 - 34 | 96 | 3.57 | 0.75 | |||
35 - 44 | 22 | 3.61 | 0.82 | |||
45 - 54 | 2 | 4.25 | 0.35 | |||
Continuance Commitment | 18 - 24 | 7 | 3.59 | 0.50 | 0.382 | 0.766 |
25 - 34 | 96 | 3.55 | 0.73 | |||
35 - 44 | 22 | 3.44 | 0.94 | |||
45 - 54 | 2 | 4.00 | 0.53 | |||
Normative Commitment | 18 - 24 | 7 | 3.54 | 0.47 | 0.116 | 0.950 |
25 - 34 | 96 | 3.58 | 0.79 | |||
35 - 44 | 22 | 3.61 | 0.65 | |||
45 - 54 | 2 | 3.88 | 0.35 |
Sub-Components | Educational Background | N | Average | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational Commitment | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.57 | 0.59 | 1.509 | 0.216 |
University | 92 | 3.57 | 0.64 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.71 | 0.31 | |||
PhD | 1 | 2.38 | ||||
Affective Commitment | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.60 | 0.80 | 2.794 | 0.163 |
University | 92 | 3.62 | 0.75 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.60 | 0.34 | |||
PhD | 1 | 1.50 | ||||
Continuance Commitment | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.58 | 0.64 | 0.962 | 0.413 |
University | 92 | 3.50 | 0.82 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.83 | 0.26 | |||
PhD | 1 | 2.88 | ||||
Normative Commitment | High-school/2-year college | 22 | 3.53 | 0.61 | 0.554 | 0.646 |
University | 92 | 3.60 | 0.80 | |||
Master | 12 | 3.70 | 0.52 | |||
PhD | 1 | 2.75 |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
organizational commitment, indicates the high perception regarding the transformational leadership attitudes and behaviors. “Having great expectations for success” has been found to have the highest average among all the components of transformational leadership. Considering this finding, leaders can be said to carry the features mostly of this component, among all the other components of transformational leadership.
Employees have been determined to have a high level of organizational commitment towards their institutions. Affective commitment, a sub-component of organizational component, has been found to have the highest average. Hence, it is possible to claim that employees adopt the aims of their institutions and they can make sacrifices by working harder in order to reach these aims.
The study has found a positive moderate relationship between the transformational leadership scale and the organizational commitment scale. Positive moderate and weak relations have been found between transformational leadership sub-components and organizational commitment scale sub-component. Hence, it is also possible to claim that leaders increase organizational commitment with their transformational leadership attitudes and behaviors.
No significant difference has been found in t test findings between two genders, and between existence and non-existence of management task in terms of “transformational leadership and its sub-components.” Based on these findings, it is possible to claim that leaders emerge as a result of having transformational leadership attitudes and behaviors equally towards all employees, and thus there is not any difference in perception.
There is not any difference found between genders in terms of organizational commitment and its sub-cate- gories. However, a difference has emerged when it comes to existence of management task. Accordingly, participation level of employees with management task to “continuance commitment” sub-component has been found significantly lower than of employees without management task. Considering this fact, it will be prudent to claim that employees without management task think that if they leave the job their loss will be bigger than of employees with management task.
According to the results of analysis of one-way variance, there has not been any difference found between different age groups and different educational backgrounds in terms of transformational leadership scale and its cub-components. There has not been any difference found between different age groups and different educational backgrounds in terms of organizational commitment and its sub-components, either.
Managers shoulder important responsibilities to increase the organizational commitment of employees. Whether institutions can perform extraordinarily and become preeminent depends on its managers with leadership properties. Therefore, managers should boost the organizational commitment of employees by displaying transformational leadership attitudes and behaviors. Employees with high organizational commitment will always work harder than expected and they will always endeavor more in order to reach institution’s aims. Leaders should act with this awareness. They also should determine the reasons for decrease in organizational commitment and take necessary measurements accordingly.
Under the ever-changing tumultuous environmental conditions of our day, studies on sense of transformational leadership, a type of leadership which focuses on changes, and on organizational commitment, one of the most important key factors for an institution’s success, can be a guiding light for managers. In this sense, how different leadership models with sense of transformational leadership in different institutions can be subject to further researches.
Ali Çağlar Gulluce,Erdoğan Kaygin,Sultan Bakadur Kafadar,Metin Atay, (2016) The Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: A Study on the Bank Employees. Journal of Service Science and Management,09,263-275. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2016.93033