Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574

6th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2012)

Rekindle Teacher’s Organizational Commitment: The Effect of

Transformational Leadership Behavior
Nurharani Selamata*, Norshidah Nordinb, Afni Anida Adnanc
abcc
Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, 40200 Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract

Teachers’ organizational commitment is a critical aspect in determining the success of education reform f and school
effectiveness because highly committed teachers are willing to contribute their extra effort to achieve school vision and goals.
Thus, it is important to identify the factors that could enhance teachers’ organizational commitment. The purpose of this study
was to examine the relationship of perceived transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment. 186
secondary school teachers in the district of Klang were selected based on two-stage random sampling. Data were collected
using the survey method and were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Based on the data collected, the
findings showed that secondary school teachers in the Klang district have high level of organizational commitment and
perceive their principals practicing strong transformational leadership behavior. The findings also revealed that there was a
positive and strong linear relationship between transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment. The
findings of this study have implications to the role of principal in exercising transformational leadership behavior to ignite
teachers’ organizational commitment.

© 2012The
© 2013 TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Ltd. Open
Selection and/orpeer-review
Selection and/or peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of theof the Faculty
Faculty of Education,
of Education, University
University Technology
Technology MARA, Malaysia.
MARA, Malaysia.

Keywords: Organizational commitment; transformational leadership behaviour

1. Background of study

As an impact of globalization, quality education becomes the ultimate goal of Malaysian education
reforms due to insufficient numbers of the right human capital (The Star, June 18, 2011). One of the most crucial
factors is the role of teacher. According to Fredriksson (2004), teachers hold the responsibilities to lift up the
school effectiveness because they have actual power to make a difference in students’ capital development during
teaching and learning process. Thus, teachers’ organizational commitment is a critical aspect in determining the
success of education reform and school effectiveness (Abd Razak, Darmawan & Keeves, 2009) because they will
highly perform their duties as if the school belonged to them (Joffres & Haughey, 2001). However, due to
stressful profession, teachers tend to show low organizational commitment (Williams, 2010). Conversely, stress
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6012-266-5359; fax: +603-3290-3122
E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Education, University Technology MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.127
 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574 567

is not the only reason for teacher’s low organizational commitment. Teacher’s traditional role had expanded to
become more complicated (Bartlett, 2004). Ross Azura & Normah (2011) explains that teachers have too many
obligations towards parents, education reform and principal which results in work overload (Stoddard & Kuhn,
2008). Additionally, Leithwood (2006) reports that not only overwork has reduced teachers’ organizational
commitment but also teachers poor relationship with the principal. Blase & Blase (2006) provide evidence on
existing cases of principal mistreatment to teachers which include denying leave, restricting them to express
views and opinions, avoiding, swearing, screaming, finger pointing, favouritism, unfair job appraisal,
unreasonable monitoring, threaten transfer or terminate their service, public criticizing and humiliating, unfair
assignment, dishonesty, sexual harassment and racism. These phenomenons are rarely reported, thus causing it to
continuously occur and decrease teacher’s organizational commitment (Blase & Blase, 2003).
Research reported that teachers with low organizational commitment often come late to work and tend to be
frequently absent from work by abusing sick leave (Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2010) which caused lose
of valuable instruction time due to ineffective substitute teacher or class cancellation (Gaziel, 2004). Besides,
teachers with low organizational commitment intend to migrate to another school or resign from the teaching
profession (Labatmediene, Endriulaitiene & Gustainiene, 2007). The inexperienced replacement teachers may
cause the school to struggle to maintain its quality of education (Xaba, 2003) because the less effective
inexperienced teachers may contribute to low student achievements (Rinke, 2008). Subsequently, teachers who
show low organizational commitment are only interested with their own success rather than the organization’s
success (Fresko, Kfir & Nasser, 1997) which affects their involvement to provide quality education and their
ability in helping students towards academic achievement.
Organizational commitment is a multidimensional construct of psychological state that describes an
employee’s relationship with his or her organization that has implication on employee’s decision to remain or
leave the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The multidimensional construct of organizational commitment
consists of affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Affective commitment
refers to employee’s identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to the organization while
continuance commitment refers to employee’s awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization.
On the other hand, normative commitment is employee’s commitment to the organization based on a sense of
obligation to the organization. It is important to enhance organizational commitment as a whole because an
employee who demonstrates strong organizational commitment will be engaged in positive work behavior such
as low levels of absenteeism, tardiness and turnover which result in organizational effectiveness (Angle & Perry,
1981; Iverson & Buttigieg, 1998). For instance, Mathieu & Zajac (1990) and Allen & Meyer (1996) provid
evidence that employees with high level of affective commitment and normative commitment could contribute to
high job performance and were more likely to have less turnover intention. Highly affective committed teachers
could also be good instructional leaders in the classroom because they are able to master the contents of the
subjects that they taught, thus they would demonstrate effective teaching. Additionally, teachers with high level
of affective commitment might always monitor the students’ work, able to control the classroom and involved in
extra-curricula activities because they tend to demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviour. On the other
hand, affective commitment, normative commitment and continuance commitment provide similar positive
outcome (Allen & Meyer, 1996). They suggested that employees with strong affective commitment, normative
commitment and continuance commitment were less likely to be absent from work.
Given this juncture, there is a critically need to examine factors that could enhance teachers’ organizational
commitment. One of the factors which have been found to influence organizational commitment is
transformational leadership behavior (Lai, Luen & Hong, 2011). According to Leithwood (1994),
transformational leadership behavior consists of eight elements namely, develop a widely shared vision, build
consensus about school goals and priorities, hold high performance expectations, provide individualized support,
provide intellectual stimulation, model behavior, strengthen school culture and build collaborative structure.
Transformational leadership behavior refers to principal leadership behavior which are exercising and setting
direction, developing people and redesigning the organization that raise teachers’ commitment to the school to
achieve school success (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris & Hopkins, 2006). Thus,
568 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574

it could be said that principal transformational leadership behavior is a form of leadership where the primary
focus is facilitating teacher commitment and capacities to accomplish school goals. However, relatively few
studies have been conducted to examine the relationships of perceived transformational leadership behavior and
teacher’s organizational commitment especially in the local setting. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap in
the research of organizational commitment among secondary school teachers and how it is influenced by
principal transformational leadership behavior.

2. Objective of the study

The objectives of the study are three-fold, namely to determine (a) the level of organizational commitment
among secondary school teachers in Klang district (b) perceived transformational leadership behavior among
secondary school teachers in Klang district (c) the relationship between perceived transformational leadership
behavior and organizational commitment among secondary school teachers in Klang district.

3. Methodology

This study utilized a survey method and descriptive in nature. A self report questionnaire was used to gather
information related to the objectives of the study. The instrument measuring multidimensional construct of
organizational commitment was adapted from Meyer, Allen & Smith (1993) with modification to suit the purpose
of the study. It consists of 16 items with a seven point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to
7=strongly agree. As for principal transformational leadership behaviour, the instrument was adapted and
adopted from The Nature of School Leadership Survey by Leithwood (1997). The instrument was chosen
because it measures principal transformational leadership behavior based on eight dimensions: develop a widely
shared vision for the school, build consensus about school goals and priorities, hold high performance
expectations, model behavior, provide individualized support, provide intellectual stimulation, strengthen school
culture and build collaborative structures. A six point Likert scale has been altered to a seven point Likert scale
which ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. The samples were drawn from daily secondary
school teachers mainly from the district of Klang, Selangor, Malaysia. Hence, using the two stage cluster
sampling, a sample size of 346 was determined. In this study, the sample was permanent teachers who are
teaching at daily secondary schools in the district of Klang and excluded private secondary schools, national
religious secondary schools, fully residential school, technical secondary school, premier schools, centennial
schools and special model schools. Therefore, the findings are limited to permanent teachers who teach at daily
secondary schools in the Klang district. However, only a total of 186 permanent secondary school teachers
participated in this study.

3. Findings and Discussion

3.1 Teachers’ Level of Organizational Commitment

Table 1. The Levels of Organizational Commitment of Secondary School Teachers

Level Frequency (n=186) Percentage %

Low 3 1.6
Moderate 85 45.7
High 98 52.7

Total 186 100

Table 1 displays the levels of organizational commitment among secondary school teachers in the Klang
district. The findings revealed that majority of them, that is, 52.7% (98) demonstrated high level of commitment
 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574 569

to their schools and 44.6% (36) showed moderate organizational commitment level. On the other hand, only
1.6% (3) of respondents showed low level of organizational commitment. Further analysis was conducted to
determine mean and standard deviation scores of each organizational commitment component as shown in Table
2.

Table 2. The Organizational Commitment Components’ Scores of Secondary School Teachers

Component Mean Standard Deviation Indicator

Affective Commitment 5.16 1.121 High
Continuance Commitment 4.76 1.085 Moderate
Normative Commitment 4.53 0.959 Moderate

Table 2 displays the mean and standard deviation scores of the three components of organizational
commitment. The mean scores are arranged in descending order and the result depicts that the mean scores of all
the three components range from 5.16 to 4.53, which indicates that the scores are between high to moderate. The
result also indicates that affective commitment mean score (mean=5.16, SD=1.121) was higher than continuance
commitment mean score (mean=4.76, SD=1.085) and normative commitment mean score (mean=4.53,
SD=0.959).
The findings revealed most of the respondents were highly committed to their schools while only a few
respondents showed low levels of commitment to school. As suggested by Meyer & Allen (1991), it could be
inferred that most of the teachers were more likely to stay in the current schools and only a few of them would
leave the current schools. The findings also depicts that respondents’ affective commitment was higher as
compared with continuance commitment and normative commitment. This finding is supported by Noordin,
Mohd Rashid, Ghani, Aripin & Darus (2010) who also discovered that most of Malaysian teachers have high
level of affective commitment and moderate level of continuance commitment and normative commitment.
However, the finding contradicts that of Meyer & Allen (1997) who suggest that government employees tend to
show high level of continuance commitment due to job security. Based on the findings, it could be said that
majority of teachers remain in the school because they are emotionally attached to the school and not because
they ought to or need to maintain the school organization membership (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Perhaps, as
suggested by Meyer & Allen (1991), the teachers demonstrate strong affective commitment to the school because
their job roles were clearly defined. They perceived the principal satisfies their physical and psychological needs
by allowing them to grow professionally and recognize their contributions. In contrast, the moderate level of
continuance commitment implied that teachers feel they need to stay in the school because they had invested
their time and effort to the school (Meyer & Allen, 1997) and they would lose their seniority and good friends
when they leave the school (Becker, 1960). The findings also revealed that normative commitment received the
lowest mean score among all organizational commitment components. This may indicate that these teachers
maintain their school organization membership due to sense of obligation (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This may be a
reflection of family socialization whereby before joining the school, the teachers have been taught to be loyal to
the school (Wiener, 1982 as cited in Meyer & Allen, 1991). Other possible reasons that teachers’ could develop
normative commitment are when they feel that school expects their loyalty (Meyer & Allen, 1991), principal
provides beneficial training or they received educational scholarship to pursue their studies (Scholl, 1981 as cited
in Meyer & Allen, 1991).
570 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574

3.2 Perceived transformational leadership behavior among secondary school teachers in Klang district

Table 3. The Dimensions of Transformational Leadership Behavior

Dimension Mean Standard Deviation Indicator

Hold high performance expectations 5.38 1.011 High

Develop a widely shared vision for the school 5.16 1.054 High
Build consensus about school goals and priorities
Strengthen school culture 5.07 0.998 High
Provide intellectual stimulation
Model behavior 5.03 1.081 High
Build collaborative structures 5.02 1.035 High
Provide individualized support 4.86 1.052 Moderate
4.87 1.082 Moderate
4.79 1.044 Moderate

Table 3 reports the mean and standard deviation scores for eight dimensions associated with transformational
leadership behavior. The mean scores for each transformational leadership behavior are arranged in descending
order to rank them from the most exhibited dimension of transformational leadership behavior to the least
exhibited dimension of transformational leadership behavior. The daily secondary school teachers in the district
of Klang perceived the most exhibited dimension of their principal transformational leadership behavior as
holding high performance expectation (mean=5.38, SD=1.011). Secondly, the data analysis suggested that most
of the principals exercised developing a widely shared vision for the school (mean=5.16, SD=1.054) in their
transformational leadership behavior as perceived by the teachers. Other dimensions of transformational
leadership behavior that received high mean scores were building consensus about school goals and priorities
(mean=5.07, SD=0.998), strengthening school culture (mean=5.03, SD=1.081) and providing intellectual
stimulation (mean=5.02, SD=1.035). Meanwhile, the teachers perceived that their principals moderately practiced
these three transformational leadership behavior dimensions: models behavior (mean=4.86, SD=1.052), building
collaborative structures (mean=4.87, SD=1.082) and providing individualized support (mean=4.79, SD=1.044).
As a whole, it could be said that the respondents perceived their principals exhibited stronger transformational
leadership behavior.
The findings suggested that daily secondary school teachers in the district of Klang perceived their principals
exercised strongly the transformational leadership behavior. Therefore, it can be inferred that transformational
leadership behavior occurs when principals make much effort in setting direction, developing people and
redesigning the school organization (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006). The findings of this
study were inline with Yu, Leithwood & Jantzi (2002) which revealed these teachers perceived that the most
exhibited element of principal transformational leadership behavior was holding high performance expectation
and the least exhibited element of principal transformational leadership behavior was providing individualized
support. The reason could be due to principals’ behavior of always communicating their high expectations for
teachers to maintain quality and effectiveness of the school (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997). The findings also show
other dimensions of transformational leadership behavior that received high mean scores were developing a
widely shared vision for the school, building consensus about school goals and priorities, strengthening school
culture and providing intellectual stimulation. As suggested by Leithwood & Jantzi (1997), the principals make
an effort to explain school vision and goals to teachers and support them in achieving school vision and goals.
The findings also implied that principals encourage teachers to try new practices relevant to teaching and learning
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997) and promote the importance to develop shared norms, belief and values among
teachers (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Comparatively, the teachers perceived that their principals moderately
practiced models behavior. This indicated that the principals were less likely to model desirable professional
practices for teachers to follow (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997). Based on the findings, it could be inferred that the
principals might not practice punctuality, are not actively involved in all school activities, moderately show their
enthusiasm towards work, less likely to change their current leadership practices for school well-being and less
 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574 571

likely to gain feedback from staff or teachers about their works. The findings also depict that building
collaborative structures dimension received moderate mean score. This implied that there is a possibility that
teachers were not given the opportunity to build their leadership capacity and principals were less likely to
engage teachers in decision making process (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997) because Malaysia is a country with
highly centralized public organization and practices bureaucratic top-down approach (Khaliq & Singh, 2001),
thus, leaders tend to practice paternal leadership style (Abdullah, 1996). Leithwood et al. (2006) also suggests the
possible reason teachers perceived the principals moderately demonstrated this dimension could be due to lack of
trust in principal and teachers relationship. Finally, the findings revealed the lowest mean score among all
elements is providing individualized support. As suggested by Karsli & Iskender (2009), perhaps, teachers feel
that the principal does not consider their needs and feelings. This occurrence might be due to large number of
teachers in a school. The findings also implied that there are possibilities that the principals were not really
approachable, they might treat teachers unequally and they were less likely to appreciate teachers’ contributions.

3.3 The relationship between perceived transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment
among secondary school teachers in Klang district.

Table 4. Correlation Matrix Analysis of Perceived Transformational Leadership Behavior and Organizational Commitment

Variables 1 2
1. Transformational Leadership Behavior 1
2. Organizational Commitment 0.539** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed), Cronbach Alpha, p<0.005

Based on Table 4, transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment showed a strong and
positive (r=0.539, p=0.000) linear relationship. To further investigate the relationship between the dependent
variable, organizational commitment and each of the dimensions of transformational leadership behavior, similar
analyses were performed as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Correlation Matrix Analysis of Perceived Transformational Leadership Behavior Dimensions and Organizational Commitment

SV SG HP MB IS I SC C OC
SV 1
SG 0.855** 1
HP 0.864** 0.866** 1
MB 0.764** 0.824** 0.776** 1
IS 0.744** 0.834** 0.732** 0.831** 1
I 0.731** 0.839** 0.768** 0.740** 0.844** 1
SC 0.784** 0.868** 0.800** 0.811** 0.885** 0.863** 1
C 0.655** 0.760** 0.633** 0.780** 0.852** 0.771** 0.863** 1
OC 0.565** 0.542** 0.540** 0.535** 0.482** 0.455** 0.459** 0.386** 1.00
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed), Cronbach Alpha, p<0.005

SV=develop a widely shared vision for the school, SG= build consensus about school goals and priorities, HP=hold high performance
expectations, MB=model behavior, IS= provide individualized support, I= provide intellectual stimulation, SC= strengthen school culture, C=
build collaborative structures and OC= organizational commitment.

The correlation matrix analysis in Table 4 indicates the strength of the association between the elements of
transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment. The Pearson’s Product Moment correlation
coefficients in Table 5 showed that there were strong and significantly positive linear relationships between the
572 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574

four elements of transformational leadership behavior and organizational commitment. The strongest linear
relationship existed among all the elements of transformational leadership behavior and organizational
commitment of developing a widely shared vision for the school (r=0.565, p=0.000). The next strongest
relationship was building consensus about school goals and priorities (r=0.542, p=0.000). The Pearson’s Product
Moment correlation analysis reported that holding high performance expectations (r=0.540, p=0.000) and
modelling behavior (r=0.535, p=0.000) also showed strong and linear relationship with organizational
commitment. However, the remaining elements of transformational leadership behavior; providing individualized
support (r=0.482, p=0.000), providing intellectual stimulation (r=0.455, p=0.000), strengthening school culture
(r=0.459, p=0.000) and building collaborative structures (r=0.386, p=0.000) were found to have only moderate
and positive linear relationships with organizational commitment.
Transformational leadership behavior showed positive and strong linear relationship with organizational
commitment. The findings of the study were consistent with the study conducted by Koh, Steers & Terborg
(1995) and Emery & Baker (2007) but contradict with Marmaya Hitam, Muhammad Torsiman & Balakrishnan
(2011) who suggested that transactional leadership behavior were likely to influence more strongly
organizational commitment than transformational leadership behavior and Chandna & Krishnan (2009) who
revealed that there was no relationship between transformational leadership behavior and organizational
commitment. In terms of the correlation between elements of transformational leadership behavior and
organizational commitment, the correlation matrix analysis showed that all elements of transformational
leadership behavior and organizational commitment gave a positive and linear relationship. However, the
correlation strength varied from strong to moderate. Only four elements of transformational leadership behavior
showed strong relationship with organizational commitment. Development of a widely shared vision for the
school showed the strongest linear relationship with organizational commitment. The next strongest relationship
with organizational commitment was shown by building consensus about school goals and priorities, followed by
holding high performance expectations and modelling behavior. However, the remaining elements of
transformational leadership behavior; providing individualized support, providing intellectual stimulation,
strengthening school culture and building collaborative structures were found to have only moderate and positive
linear relationships with organizational commitment. The findings were inline with Amoroso (2002) thus
confirming Bass & Riggio (2006) suggestion that each element of transformational leadership behavior could
affect differently employees’ commitment to the organization. As suggested by Leithwood & Jantzi (1997,
1999), it could be implied that principal who practices strongly developing a widely shared vision, building
consensus about school goals and priorities, holding high performance expectations and modelling behavior
could enhance level of teachers’ commitment to school. On the other hand, the result also suggested that the
teachers tend to have low commitment to school when principal did not provide individualized support and
intellectual stimulation, did not strengthen school culture and build collaborative structure. Thus, it could be
inferred that when teachers perceived their principal strongly demonstrated the transformational leadership
behavior, the levels of their commitment to school might increase (Koh et al., 1995).

4. Conclusion

As Malaysia’s National Mission aims to attain a developed country status by 2020, the quality of education is
a crucial factor in producing first class human capital. The finding of this study suggests that principal’s
transformational leadership behavior is strongly correlated to teacher’s organizational commitment. Therefore,
the role of principal in creating teachers’ commitment to school is vital. For future research, it is suggested that
the perceptions of other stakeholders such as parents and students should be considered to measure teacher’s
organizational commitment.
 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574 573

References
Abd Razak, N., Darmawan, I.G.D., & Keeves, J.P. (2009). Teacher commitment. International Handbook of Research on Teachers and
Teaching, 343–360.
Abdullah, A. (1996). Going Glocal: Cultural Dimensions in Malaysian Management. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysian Institute of
Management.
Ahmad Tatlah, I., Ali, Z., & Muhammad Saeed. (2011). Leadership behavior and organizational commitment: An empirical study of
educational professionals. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 1293 – 1298.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and variables associated with affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct
validity. Journal Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276.
Amoroso, P.F. (2002). The impact of principal's transformational leadership behaviors on teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Seton Hall University, South Orange. Retrieved from:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd2152009080918/unrestricted/AmorosoD06.pdf
Angle, H.L., & Perry, J.L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organization commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Bartlett, L. (2004). Expanding teacher work roles: A resource for retention or a recipe for overwork. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 565–
582.
Bass, B. & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–42.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003). The phenomenology of principal mistreatment: Teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration,
41(4), 367-422.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2006). The mistreated teacher: A National Study. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 263-301.
Chandna, P. & Krishnan, V.R. (2009). Organizational commitment of information technology professionals: role of transformational
leadership and work-related beliefs, Tecnia. Journal of Management Studies, 4(1), 1-13.
Emery, C.R. & Barker, K.J. (2007). The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational commitment and
job satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(1), 77-90.
Fredriksson, U. (2004). Quality education: The key role of teachers. Education International Working Papers No.14, 1-20.
Fresko, B., Kfir, D., & Nasser, F. (1997). Predicting teacher commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 429-438.
Gaziel, H.H. (2004). Predictors of absenteeism among primary school teachers. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 421-434.
Iverson, R. D., & Buttigieg, D. M. (1999). Affective, normative and continuance commitment: Can the `right kind' of commitment be
managed? Journal of Management Studies, 36(3), 307-333.
Joffres, C., & Haughey, M. (2001). Elementary teachers’ commitment declines: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. The Qualitative
Report, 6(1). Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss.QR/QR6-1/joffres.html
Karsli, M. D., & Iskender, H. ( 2009). To examine the effect of the motivation provided by the administration on the job satisfaction of
teachers and their institutional commitment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2252–2257.
Khaliq, A., & Singh, S. (2001). Leading and motivating a Malaysian workforce. In Asma, A. and Low, A.H.M. (eds). Understanding the
Malaysian workforce: Guideline for managers. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management.
Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M., & Terborg, J.R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in
Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319–333.
Labatmediene, L., Kaunas, L., Endriulaitiene, A., & Gustainiene, L. (2007). Individual correlates of organizational commitment and intention
to leave the organization. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(2), 196-212.
Lai, T.T., Luen, W.K., & Hong, N.M. (2011). School principal leadership styles and teachers organizational commitment. A research agenda.
2nd International Conference on Business and Economic Research Proceeding, 165 – 176.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K. (1997). The nature of leadership survey. Unpublished Manuscript, The Ontario Institute Studies in Education: University of
Toronto at Toronto, Canada.
Leithwood, K. (2006). Teacher working conditions that matter: Evidence for change. Toronto, Ontario: The Elementary Teachers’ Federation
of Ontario.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: What is it and how it influences pupil
learning. A report to the Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR800.pdf
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1997). Explaining variation in teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership: A replication. Journal of
Educational Administration, 35(4), 312-331.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
10(4), 451-479.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leader effects: A replication. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434.
Marmaya, N.H., Hitam, M., Muhammad Torsiman, N., & Balakrishnan, B.KPD. (2011). Employees’ perceptions of Malaysian managers’
leadership styles and organizational commitment. African Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1584-1588.
Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
574 Nurharani Selamat et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 566 – 574

Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15-23.
Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to Organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component
conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Noordin, F., Mohd Rashid, R., Ghani, R., Aripin, R., & Darus, Z. (2010). Teacher professionalisation and organisational commitment:
Evidence from Malaysia. Paper presented at EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings.
Rinke, C.R. (2008). Understanding teachers’ careers: Linking professional life to professional path. Educational Research Review, 3, 1-13.
Ross Azura, Z. & Normah, C.D. (2011). Teacher stress: An examination of factors influencing teaching performance in the rural elementary
schools. Simposium Sains Kesihatan Kebangsaan ke 7, 224 – 225.
Scholl, R.W. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review,
6(4), 589-599.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. & Rosenblatt, Z. (2010). Formal ethical climate and voluntary absence: The mediation effect of organizational
commitment. Journal of Educational Management, 48(2), 164-181.
Stoddard, C., & Kuhn, P. (2008). Incentives and effort in the public sector: Have US education reforms increased teachers’ work hours?
Economics of Education Review, 27, 1–13.
The Star (2011, June 18). Education system needs an overhaul. Retrieved from:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/6/18/nation/8924315&sec=nation
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organisations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.
Williams, R. (2010). Does affective commitment decrease the level of stress reported in teachers? A comparison of primary and secondary
school teachers. The Plymouth Student Scientist, 3(2), 142-163.
Xaba, M.I. (2003). Managing teacher turnover. South African Journal of Education, 23(4), 287 – 291.
Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change in Hong Kong.
Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (4), 368-389.