Plan Care Company’s Management and Employee Loyalty Dissertation

Abstract

Evidence shows that managerial behaviors affect different facets of an organization. Although most studies focus on how to improve organizational productivity by focusing on mechanistic attributes of an organization, this paper evaluates the extent that managerial behavior affects the aesthetic qualities of employer-employee relationships in a UK organization – Plan Care. The main emphasis of this paper is to understand the extent that managerial behaviors affect employee loyalty and commitment. Based on a mixed research approach, this paper establishes that poor managerial behavior at Plan Care harms employee commitment and loyalty. To mitigate this concern, based on the principles of McGregor’s management theory, this paper proposes the adoption of theory Y ideologies at the organization to improve employer-employee relations.

Introduction

Background

Workplace relationships are never reciprocal. Deery (2008) says, while people like to believe in the concept of equality and democracy in the workplace, the reality is that some groups of employees exercise more power than other employees do. Broadly, this situation is a notable human reality that surfaces in various forms of human interaction. This is particularly true when understanding the reality of team dynamics in an organization (Holton 2001). Through this imbalanced nature of human relationships in the workplace, employees have always expressed their loyalty and commitment to employers, based on the severity and nature of employer-employee relationships.

Managerial behavior has only recently started to respond to organizational changes that have happened in the past few decades. Particularly, laying off workers for purposes of maximizing shareholder value has taken precedent in the last few years (Cassidy 2003). It is therefore unsurprising to hear business leaders saying they are minimizing the number of workers to improve the value of their shareholders. Gill (2008) also posits that it is common to see firms cut back on employee benefits to adapt to worsening economic conditions and maximize shareholder value. Based on this trend, Denning (2013) says, unlike 30 years ago, employers’ attitudes towards their employees have changed because instead of perceiving them as an important tenet of the organization, they are treated as short-term economic resources. As affirmed in Peter Capelli’s book, “Why Good People Cannot Get Jobs: The Skills Gap and What Companies Can Do About It,” the importance of employees to an organization largely depends on how useful the employees are to the employer (Deery 2008).

McSweeney (2008) believes that by treating employees as economic resources, companies may (possibly) report negative organizational outcomes because this practice causes negative employee engagement (the quality of the relationship between employees and their employers largely influences the quality of these engagements). Indeed, relative to this argument, human nature remains the same, although economic conditions may change. Therefore, while managers strive to adapt to economic conditions, they fail to see how such adaptations affect the unchanging human nature (Cassidy 2003). More specifically, they fail to realize that even though human nature may have different dynamics, the need for managers and employees to remain connected remains the same.

The need for employees to feel connected to management is not a new phenomenon in organizational behavior studies. McSweeney (2008) says employees sometimes adopt organizational behaviors that would potentially cost them. For example, sticking to one company, even though the pay is less, is common employee behavior that stems from employee loyalty and organizational commitment (even in the face of worsening economic conditions). Certainly, through such observations, it is difficult to deny the fact that most employees care a lot about workplace relationships, their welfare, and the welfare of other people in the organization. Indeed, Cassidy (2003) says that even when employees debate on whether to leave an organization or not, there is always a social cost of doing so. A significant variable in this analysis is managerial behavior and especially how managers treat employees. Thus, employee perceptions regarding their usefulness to organizations have a significant impact on their commitment and loyalty to the organization. This is especially true because employee commitment and loyalty strike a sensitive nerve that borders on employee emotions and attitudes in the workplace. Organizations have only recently started to pay close attention to these factors because they can significantly affect employee behavior in the workplace. The impact is more severe in the service sector because employee emotions and attitudes can also affect customer satisfaction, organizational productivity, and, by extension, organizational profitability. It is therefore important for managers to understand the extent that their behavior affects employee commitment and loyalty.

Purpose of Study

Although this paper hints that employee commitment and loyalty are vital for service-oriented businesses, the truth is that committed and loyal employees are vital for any business. Certainly, loyal and committed employees are motivated employees (all of which help to improve a company’s productivity, thereby making it easier to achieve its goals) (America Job Exchange 2013). From this background, the findings of this paper will be useful to different companies (particularly in understanding how their managerial behaviors affect their employee productivities, and by extension, organizational productivity). The findings of this study will be able to wade through several facts that explain how employee productivity could be improved through job satisfaction, employee motivation, and employee commitment by focusing on one aspect that is firmly within managerial grasp – managerial behavior. The focus of this study, therefore, provides a direct approach for organizations to improve their productivity by realizing the benefits of having committed and loyal employees.

Besides positive organizational outcomes, the findings of this paper also add to the growing body of literature surrounding employee commitment and the effects of managerial behaviors on employee loyalty. Particularly, the findings of this paper give a contextual appeal to the above analysis by evaluating the extent that managerial behavior affects employee commitment and loyalty. Through these findings, managers would be able to understand the extent that their managerial behaviors cost an organization, through varied employee commitment and loyalty levels. This way, they can have a more accurate understanding of the best managerial behaviors to support in the organization and which ones they should eliminate. Broadly, the main motivation for undertaking this paper is to investigate the high level of employee dissatisfaction witnessed at Plan Care Organization in the United Kingdom (UK). Plan Care cares for the elderly and has several branches spread across the UK. Being an employee of the organization, I seek to understand why employees are unhappy with how managers treat them, and if an alternative management style would have different results.

Research Aim

To understand the extent that managerial behaviors affect employee’s commitment and loyalty

Research Objectives

• To establish the predominant management style at Plan Care
• To investigate the extent that managerial behaviors affect job satisfaction at Plan Care
• To understand the effect that managerial behaviors have on employee motivation at Plan Care
• To establish the link between managerial behaviors and employee turnover at Plan Care

Research Questions

• What type of managerial behavior characterizes Plan Care’s Administration?
• To what extent does managerial behavior affect job satisfaction at Plan Care?
• To what extent do managerial behaviors affect employee motivational levels at Plan Care?
• What is the link between managerial behaviors and employee turnover at Plan Care?

Structure of the Dissertation

Six chapters outline the structure of this dissertation. The first chapter is the introduction section, which outlines the background, motivations, and purpose of undertaking this study. The second chapter is the literature review section, which contains an investigation of what other researchers have written about this research topic (an investigation of the key ideas and theories surrounding this research topic also appear in this section). The methodology section is the third chapter of this dissertation. It describes and assesses the approaches used in this research to come up with the findings of the study. Key issues that appear here include data collection techniques, sampling techniques, data analysis techniques, and the research strategy adopted. The data gathered from the adoption of the above methodologies appear in the fourth chapter – the findings chapter. This chapter presents the main findings of the paper and graphical representations of the same. A discussion of the same issue occurs in the fifth chapter – the analysis chapter. This chapter analysis dissects and compares the study’s findings to come up with the interpretive meanings of the same. A comparison of the study’s findings to previous findings and opinions also occur in the same chapter. Lastly, the concluding chapter is the sixth chapter of this paper and it presents a summary of the main findings, plus a recommendation of future areas of research.

Literature Review

Introduction

Managers have never disputed the value of committed and loyal employees to their organizations (Holton 2001). Particularly, they acknowledge the fact that loyal employees always go beyond basic requirements to complete small tasks that help organizations meet their goals. Although organizations desire such loyalty and commitment from their employees, many pieces kinds of literature show unfavorable economic conditions have put managers in a precarious position, which forces them to downsize their organizations and reduce employee numbers (Gill, 2008). Unfortunately, such managerial behaviors contravene the psychological contract between employees and their employers. This contravention often creates attitudinal and behavioral responses that may not be favorable for any organization. Researchers have narrowed down this effect to the reduction of employee motivation and performance levels (Gill 2008; McSweeney 2008). Others have provided a more practical analysis of such contraventions by saying they lead to low employee loyalty levels, increased workplace complaints, and neglect of important workplace duties (including other similar outcomes). In extreme cases, organizations witness massive employee walkouts.

Considering managers invest many resources to train, educate, and mold their employees to be productive, they cannot afford to be losing their employees because of poor management behaviors. They, therefore, face an uphill task of striking a balance between meeting organizational goals and satisfying employee requirements. Thus, this chapter explores key dynamics of employee motivation and loyalty standards. The main issues emerging in this literature review, therefore, strive to understand how management behaviors affect employee job satisfaction, employee turnover, and employee work attitudes. However, independent of these analyses, an understanding of how employee personalities affect managerial behaviors also surface to show the extent that managerial behaviors would affect employee commitment and loyalty. Key theories surrounding employee motivation provides the theoretical framework for conducting the above analyses.

Theoretical Background

Taylor’s Theory of Scientific Management

Taylor’s scientific management theory posits that additional pay motivates most employees to work (Weisbord 2011). Through the belief that most employees are self-centered and opportunistic individuals, the scientific management theory suggests that most managers should reward only employees that finish their work and “punish” those that do not, by denying them pay (Weisbord 2011). From this idea, the theory proposes “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008, p. 348) policy. Through its framework, the scientific management theory proposes four principles.

The first principle urges managers to replace work by using the “rule of thumb.” Stated differently, the theory proposes that most managers should use scientific methods of determining the most efficient organizational processes, maintain them, and eliminate inefficient ones (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). The second principle suggests that company managers should ensure they assign the right people to different job tasks (especially by using their competencies and motivations as the main basis of the review) (Weisbord 2011). Thereafter, the managers should train their employees to be highly productive. The third principle urges managers to be vigilant about work processes and provide guidance where necessary.

Through this process, managers are also encouraged to maintain only efficient organizational processes (Weisbord 2011). Lastly, the scientific management theory requires managers to allocate work between employees and employers to give them enough space to concentrate on planning and training, while lower-level employees work on small jobs in the organization (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). This way, there would be maximum efficiency in the organization. Broadly, Taylor proposed the scientific management theory after explaining that pushing employees to improve their productivity was not as important as optimizing workflow processes (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). From this view, he proposed that if managers optimized and simplified workflow processes, they should have the greatest effect on employee productivity (Weisbord 2011).

The greatest criticism of the scientific management theory is its oversimplification of human nature. For example, Wagner-Tsukamoto (2008) says the scientific management theory has serious methodological issues because it presents an “inhuman” face of employee behavior. Portraying employees as outright self-centered and aptly opportunistic individuals also drew criticism from some sociologists who have also criticized the scientific management theory for its inaccurate depiction of human nature (Simha 2010). However, Morgan (2006) says people should know that the organizational environment characterizing Taylor’s time was different from today’s organizational environment. Then, managers had minimal interaction with their employees. Managers also preferred minimal contact with employees because they wanted to have enough space to do their work (Morgan 2006). Moreover, there was very little standardization in the industry and employees had no other motivations to work, except to preserve their jobs and earn a living (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). A different issue that should be understood in this analysis is the fact that Taylor was a mechanical engineer and his focus was looking for better ways of making organizations (workplace processes) efficient.

Although some researchers later disapproved of some of Taylor’s principles, the above principles created the groundwork for some of the major theories we know today. It is therefore unsurprising that at the time of formulating the principles, many managers adopted the scientific management theory in their work processes (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). For example, Weisbord (2011) says the adoption of the scientific management theory introduced systematic selections of employees and training procedures. Furthermore, the principles of the theory provided some of the initial research data for understanding how managers could improve organizational efficiencies (Simha 2010). Indeed, although few managers practice or support the scientific management theory today, it is important to say that the theory provided the framework for the development of advanced management practice, as people know it today.

Human Relations Theory

After undertaking a series of experiments (Hawthorne studies), Elton Mayo (cited in Pyöriä 2005) developed the human relations theory. The American scientist suggested that if company managers took time to cater to employees’ personal and social needs, they would realize higher productivity and loyalty from their employees (Muldoon 2012). Central to Mayo’s approach was a deep understanding of individual motivational factors. His main emphasis was to shift people’s perceptions of employees from a mechanistic view to a humanistic view. Through this emphasis, Mayo emphasized the importance of understanding group dynamics when managing employees (Pyöriä 2005). It is from this analysis that subsequent researchers started to perceive the workplace environment, not only as an office, or a factory, but also as a place where people mingle, socially. This analysis birthed the concept of “social employees” whose quality of interaction with managers and other colleagues largely influenced their productivity as well (Pyöriä 2005).

A key tenet of the human relations movement was the treatment of employees as part of a group, as opposed to an individual (Muldoon 2012). Another tenet stemmed from the understanding that the need to belong to a social group was greater than the need to realize additional monetary rewards. The theory also posited that informal groups in the workplace had a strong influence on employee productivity (Muldoon 2012). These principles sharply contradicted the views of Fredrick Taylor, through his scientific management theory, because it disputed the fact that material factors mainly motivated people to work (Pyöriä 2005). Instead, Mayo (cited in Muldoon 2012) proposed that emotional and safety factors greatly affected employee productivity. Other findings that emerged from the Hawthorne studies showed that most employees felt empowered and rejuvenated to work if they worked as a group (Pyöriä 2005). Similarly, the findings showed that if company managers took time to consult with their employees (supervision), they would similarly realize improved employee commitment and loyalty levels (Pyöriä 2005).

Although many managers have used the human relations theory to improve organizational productivity, some analysts have criticized it for being manipulative and exploitative. For example, Bruce & Nylan (2011) says Mayo advanced this theory to manipulate employees to comply with the wishes of their managers. Some workers also believe that the adoption of the theory greatly undermines their economic interests at work (Taneja & Pryor 2011). Analysts, who hold the same view, suggest that most proponents of the theory want to benefit managers and organizations only because they concentrate on seeking better ways of improving organizational productivity, as opposed to improving the welfare of workers (Bruce & Nylan 2011). Empirical criticisms have also emerged regarding the credibility of the theory because some researchers believe the theory does not prove any empirical relations between employee commitment and productivity, managerial behavior and productivity, and the inclusion of employees in the decision-making process with organizational productivity (Bruce & Nylan 2011; Pyöriä 2005).

Neo-Human Relation Theories

The neo-human relations ideology emerged in the 1950s when pioneer researchers like Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg emphasized the importance of managers to understand the physiological and psychological needs of employees (Muldoon 2012). Maslow proposed that most managers should heed the needs and aspirations of their employees (Dye & Mills 2005). He outlined five clusters of these needs as described below.

Dye & Mills (2005) proposed that company managers should hierarchically meet the above needs, such that when they meet a low-level need, their focus should thereafter move to a higher-level need. Illustratively, Shouldland (2012) proposed that most employees who need food would work for minimum wage before they think of demanding better pay to fulfill a higher-level need, such as job security. The importance of proposing Maslow’s school of thought was to encourage managers to provide employee incentives that meet the individual needs of their workers. The underlying motivation for proposing this school of thought was also to sensitize managers on the idea that similar things do not motivate all workers. Thus, it was vital for managers to respond only to those needs that appealed to a group of employees (Dye & Mills 2005).

Theory X and Y

In his book, the “Human Side of Enterprise,” McGregor (1960), suggested that human behaviors existed across a continuum of two extremes – theory X and theory Y. Theory X suggests that most employees are lazy and would avoid work if they had the freedom to do so (McGregor 1960). Through this behavior, theory X proposes that most employees need to work under strict organizational controls, while managers need to be available to supervise them. Through the same principle, theory X proposes the implementation of a strictly hierarchical structure in the organization, where there is little room for managers to compromise as well (Russ 2013). This school of thought encourages a special breed of managers who use threats and coercion to make their employees work. In such an environment, it is common to experience mistrust and highly restrictive environments in the organization (punitive environments are also characteristic of such environments) (Taneja & Pryor 2011).

Theory X managers share close ideologies with Taylor’s scientific management theory because they also believe that money motivates most employees to improve their productivity (Taneja & Pryor 2011). Such managers also believe in blaming employees (first) before they analyze any other source of conflict (for example, the organizational system). Observers say a significant flaw of this school of thought is its affinity to create diseconomies of scale in the organization (Russ 2013). Theory Y contradicts the principles of theory X because, unlike theory X, it has a lot of faith in people. For example, McGregor (1960) says theory Y suggests that most employees exercise self-control and self-motivation always. The same theory proposes that most employees enjoy their work and would therefore easily engage in problem-solving if managers paid more attention to them (McGregor 1960).

Therefore, theory Y proposes that most employees would easily exercise self-control and self-direction if managers provided them with the right environment to do so. Observers sum the principles of theory Y as a positive depiction of employee capabilities (Russ 2013; McGregor 1960). A close reading of this theory further shows that it proposes the adoption of a positive view about employees and the potential positive outcomes that may arise from the same process. Through this view, Russ (2013) believes that most managers who adopt theory Y are more likely to create a deeper sense of trust with their employees than managers who adopt theory X. This background further shows that Theory Y managers blend with human resource development practices better than theory X managers because human resource practices seek to create a positive environment for employees to work (the same way as theory Y). Some of the characteristics of such environments would be a minimization of the differences between employees and managers and the development of a climate of trust within the organization (Russ 2013).

A comparison of theory X and theory Y would broadly suggest that the two theories are two ends of the same continuum. However, McGregor (1960) says this is untrue. Many theories have investigated this comparison. For example, the leader-member exchange theory has explored the characteristics of theory X and theory Y and provided that a combination of both theories would easily suffice if people acknowledge the uniqueness of manager-employee relationships (Sahin, 2012). Therefore, against, the principles of McGregor (1960), the leader-member exchange theory points out that most managers would treat their employees differently, depending on the quality of their relationships (Sahin, 2012). Through the combination of theory X and theory Y, Kang & Stewart (2007), say an important issue that emerges here is “affective commitment” because it helps to improve the quality of relationships between managers and employees. Stated differently, employees that receive positive treatment from their managers tend to develop an affective commitment to their managers and the organization.

In sum, the leader-member exchange theory postulates that different managerial styles may vary across both theories (Sahin, 2012). For example, theory Y managers would give a lot of independence and autonomy to their workers, thereby providing them with the opportunity to recognize problems and solve them. This situation results in the development of improved loyalty and commitment of the employees to their organizations and managers. Comparatively, theory X managers would closely supervise their employees and only motivate them by providing extrinsic rewards. This situation creates an environment for the development of low-quality relationships between workers and their managers (mostly for employees who feel overlooked by their managers).

Researchers who have evaluated the relationship between theory X, theory Y and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs say that the theories share a close relationship because they rely on human behavior and human motivations to explain employee productivity (Kang & Stewart 2007). More so, theory Y and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs share an even closer relationship because both theories try to create a symbiotic relationship between managers and employees. This symbiotic relationship provides that the relationship between managers and employees should be characterized by spontaneity and creativity. However, as Russ (2011) suggests, although both theories strive to maintain a positive relationship between managers and employees, people should still understand that prejudice exists here.

Likert Management Theories

Likert management theories stem from the teachings of an American scientist, Rensis Likert, whose theories have been widely used to explain the relationship between employees and their subordinates (Hall 1972). Likert proposed four management systems – exploitative authoritative system, benevolent authoritative system, consultative system, and participative system. The exploitative authoritative system traces its roots to the classical theory where organizational duties are highly task-oriented. Moreover, managers in this type of system usually use fear and threats to motivate their employees to complete organizational tasks (Hall 1972). This type of system is also closely associated with the authoritative leadership style, as managers (standing at the top of the organization’s hierarchy) make all organizational decisions with little regard for the plight of ordinary employees. Since managerial decisions are “orders” to employees, few of them have the power to question managerial decisions. From this background, Hall (1972) says employees who experience this type of managerial environment may become hostile to organizational goals and even work to ensure they do not materialize.

The benevolent authoritative management system differs from the above management system by being less authoritative. However, like the exploitative authoritative system, it still uses punishment and partial rewards as a motive for encouraging workers to improve their productivity. Unlike the exploitative authoritative system, the benevolent authoritative system allows low-level employees to participate in the decision-making process. Nonetheless, this only happens within the context that upper-level managers provide (Hall 1972). Thus, top-level managers make most of the decisions occurring in such organizations, although with some consideration (awareness) of the conditions facing low-level employees. Consequently, such a managerial system creates a top-down decision-making system in the organization where managers acquire a great sense of ownership for organizational decisions, compared to other levels of employees.

Rad & Yarmohammadian (2006) say the sole ownership of organizational goals may result in conflict between low-level employees and upper-level managers. Particularly, Purcell & Kinnie (2003) say this situation may create a sense of competition among employees, thereby leading to employee conflicts and missed organizational goals. Nonetheless, the benevolent authoritative leadership style leads to mixed organizational outputs, as most researchers report that this situation causes moderate job satisfaction among employees and fair organizational productivity.

The third management system of the Likert management theory is the consultative management system. Observers say it shares a very close relationship with the human relations theory because it recognizes the importance of including employee input in the decision-making process (Purcell & Kinnie 2003). Although this system uses rewards and occasional punishments to motivate employees to work, most employees share in the successes and failures of the organization. Furthermore, compared to the benevolent authoritative system and the exploitative authoritative system, the consultative management system allows low-level employees to consult among themselves (however, managers still have the last word in formulating organizational decisions). Certainly, in this system, communication often flows both upwards and downwards in the organizational hierarchy (however, some analysts believe the consultative system still limits the upward flow of information) (Hall 1972).

The last management system is the participative leadership system. Bartolo & Furlonger (2000) say this management style reports the highest level of efficiency in maximizing employee output. A deeper analysis of this management style shows that it shares key facets of the human resource theory. Unlike the consultative leadership style, which limits the upward flow of information, the participative system presents a more genuine form of communication where managers and employees share information freely (horizontal communication) (Bartolo & Furlonger 2000). In addition, unlike the benevolent exploitative system and the exploitative management system, which are characterized by conflicting goals, the participative system is characterized by “accepted” organizational goals because all employees participate in the process of formulating the goals. Furthermore, all employees share a sense of responsibility for the organization’s successes and failures. The participative system, therefore, reports the highest level of employee job satisfaction.

Based on the motivational theories discussed above, analysts have used different measures of employee motivation to assess how managerial behaviors affect employee loyalty. Employee turnover has emerged at the apex of these assessments. However, as subsequent sections of this chapter show, job satisfaction and employee motivation also explain the effect of management behaviors on employee loyalty/commitment, the same way as employee turnover does. However, it is vital to understand, first, how employee turnover explains managerial behavior and employee loyalty.

Employee Turnover

National and global statistics on employee retention rates show that most managers increasingly face the problem of retaining their employees. For example, a UK study that sampled more than 800 companies, with an employee base of about 1.5 million people, reported an employee turnover rate of about 13% (Al-Ababneh 2013. The search for better terms and working conditions emerged as the main motivator for employees to seek better environments to work (Al-Ababneh 2013). From this understanding, it is unsurprising when Wagner-Tsukamoto (2008) quotes another UK survey that showed that about 75% of managers said employee retention was their greatest people-related issue in the organization. More than 90% of the managers also reported that employee retention was the leading concern for organizations today (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008).

The correlation between employee turnover and employee motivation stems from the need for organizations to retain the most skillful and knowledgeable staff. Indeed, as Kotzé & Roodt (2005) purport, the “war for talent is a global phenomenon that has attracted most organizations, as they strive to retain the most valuable employees. Three factors contribute to this phenomenon – the scarcity of skilled employees, the emigration of skilled people to look for “greener pastures,” and the global push for better terms of work. From these environmental factors, employers usually have very few options to explore. The first option would be to adopt sound managerial behaviors that attract employees (Kotzé & Roodt 2005). This way, they would benefit from attracting new employees. The second option would be to train and develop existing employees and utilize them for their increased productivities. The best strategy for doing so would be to retain this group of employees. However, emphasis on retention would require managers to investigate the factors that lead to the retention, or exit, of employees from the organization (Kotzé & Roodt 2005).

The importance of understanding employee retention rates has emerged across different studies because many analysts see it as a mirror of employee loyalty. Most researchers have often remarked that erosion of employee loyalty has often compounded the problem of low retention rates in different organizations (Oshagbemi & Gill 2004). Some of these analyses have highlighted the findings of other researchers who have emphasized the importance of understanding employee dynamics when evaluating loyalty in the workplace. For example, Wagner-Tsukamoto (2008) says generation X employees conceive their loyalty as a function of their careers, as opposed to the management behaviors that exist in a company. Such employees would therefore be undisturbed by managerial behaviors because they perceive their jobs as a stepping-stone to new career opportunities.

Since many employers realize the importance of maintaining a “reasonable” employee retention rate, many researchers explain that such employers realize the importance of having a low turnover rate because of the associated costs of having a high turnover rate (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). For example, Kotzé & Roodt (2005) say, “leave capitalisation, recruitment costs, reference checks, security clearance, temporary worker costs, relocation costs, formal training costs, and induction expenses” (p. 49) are a few costs associated with high employee turnover. Some unseen costs associated with the same high employee turnover include, “Missed deadlines, loss of organizational knowledge, lower morale due to overwork, clients’ impact and chain reaction turnover” (p. 49).

Veldsman (2003) developed a concrete understanding of the managerial behaviors that prompt employees to stay or leave an organization. He presented managerial behaviors as a function of employee well-being, organizational climate, and job satisfaction. As portrayed in the diagram below, he showed that these factors would eventually show the direction that most employees would follow to get their employer of choice. His model appears below

According to the diagram above, every employee has an opinion about their employer’s behavior, which then influences their decisions regarding if they should stay in the organization, or leave. However, Veldsman (2003) says the same decision may still be a function of other factors, like the organizational culture, and job satisfaction (as described above). For example, many researchers have used organizational culture to link leadership styles and organizational cultures, as correlates of managerial behaviors (that affect employee commitment). Wagner-Tsukamoto (2008) posits that the theoretical relationship between organizational culture and employee commitment stems from the fact that supportive and innovative organizational cultures lead to high levels of employee loyalty. Analysts have proven that the same relationship leads to high levels of employee performance (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). Thus, the above relationship shows that managerial behaviors could easily improve employee commitment through organizational cultures. To support this view, Manetje (2009) says, “Culture influences employee’s work effort and commitment, both directly through cultural values and attitudes; and indirectly through its impact on human resource practices” (p. 58).

Through the above analogy, it is correct to say organizational commitment is a product of organizational culture, while organizational culture affects organizational commitment through supportive or retrogressive organizational practices.

The above diagram also shows that organizational environments and cultures highlight external factors that may affect an employee’s decision to leave an organization. Besides these external factors, intrinsic factors, such as job satisfaction, also affect employee commitment and loyalty. Both variables (intrinsic and external factors) may have a positive or negative impact on an employee’s decision to leave or stay in an organization because they also reflect an organization’s internal and external experiences in the workplace.

Again, from the above diagram, researchers say an employee’s propensity to leave or stay in an organization depends on many variables within the control of management and external to their influence as well (Veldsman 2003). Kotzé & Roodt (2005) claim,

“The propensity to stay or leave is moderated by an individual’s mobility (the ability to pursue and find alternative employment) and the prevailing market conditions facing the individual (such as a favourable or unfavourable supply/demand for labour or the prevailing economic climate)” (p. 49).

Although many studies have pointed to a multivariate influence of individual and market factors on employee retention, Veldsman (2003) says the most important attribute that influences employee turnover is management’s influence on creating the right organizational climate for employees. Relative to this assertion, Veldsman (2003) says analysts should pay close attention to issues like “trust, cohesiveness, support, recognition, innovation, and fairness” (p. 49) when they strive to understand how managers influence employee commitment through the creation of favorable or unfavorable organizational climates.

Relationship between Employee Turnover and Managerial Behavior

Generally, several studies have linked employee turnover to managerial behavior and its effects on creating favorable or unfavorable climates for their employees. For example, Northouse (2004) did a study on about 330 companies (across 50 states) and found out that most organizations lacking clear managerial directions are likely to experience a high employee turnover. This assertion stemmed from studies that showed about 74% of employees leave their organizations because management fails to provide them with a clear sense of direction (Kotzé & Roodt 2005). From this finding, Kotzé & Roodt (2005) allude to the fact that most managers are adept at achieving employee buy-in, as opposed to achieving stakeholder buy-in.

In a related study, Griffin (2002) established a positive correlation between employee turnover and the level of control in the work environment, provided by managers to their employees. Here, Griffin (2002) says people should understand that control refers to the level of influence that most managers provide their employees to control their managerial activities. Another related study shows that employee commitment has a direct correlation with managerial behaviors that promote a culture of innovation within the organization (Kotzé & Roodt 2005). The same finding appeared to be true even for subcultures (departmental cultures) in organizations. Unsurprisingly, the same study affirmed a negative correlation between organizational commitment and managerial behaviors that promote extreme bureaucracy (Kotzé & Roodt 2005). One interesting finding that appeared from the above study was the realization that most employees attribute their commitment to a team, or a department, as opposed to a company. Therefore, Kotzé & Roodt (2005) believe that high employee turnovers are often protests of individual bosses or departments, as opposed to companies.

Another interesting finding that emerged in the above study was the effects of managers who believe in the “war for talent,” as the best strategy for improving organizational performance. Kotzé & Roodt (2005) found out that most managers sought external employees as the best addition to human resources. When these employees arrive at their new stations, existing employees always feel inferior to them. Therefore, they believe that the only way their managers would value them as if they left their companies and sought new employment opportunities elsewhere. Thus, managers who believe in the “war for talent” always promote a culture of mistrust and insubordination in the organization, which further fuels high employee turnover. Based on the intrigues of employee turnover, as discussed above, it is correct to say employee turnover shows managerial performance. However, as discussed below, job satisfaction explains employee attitudes.

Job Satisfaction

Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300). Other researchers, such as Lam & Baum (2001), have provided parallel definitions of job satisfaction as being the attitudes and feelings of employees towards their jobs, employers, and the organizations they work in. If this definition extrapolates to assess the degree of job satisfaction among employees, Armstrong (2003) explains that most employees who have a negative attitude towards their jobs report low levels of job satisfaction, while the opposite is true for employees who exude positive attitudes at work because they report higher levels of job satisfaction.

Several antecedents of job satisfaction have a direct relation to motivational theories. For example, Herzberg’s theory of motivation analyses motivation as a function of job satisfaction (Al-Ababneh 2013). The same theory proposes that unsatisfied needs of employees often lead to unnecessary tensions in the workplace, reduced employee commitment levels, and reduced loyalty (Al-Ababneh 2013). Alongside this theory, researchers have explored different issues that may contribute to employee dissatisfaction with their work including hygienic factors, job security, managerial behaviors (among others). Herzberg’s theory postulates that when employees perceive these variables as unsatisfactory, they are likely to develop a significant level of job dissatisfaction (Al-Ababneh 2013). The theory also posits that the accepted levels of these variables fail to lead to job dissatisfaction, but it prevents such an eventuality from happening (Al-Ababneh 2013). From this understanding, the Herzberg theory suggests that the factors that may lead to job dissatisfaction may not necessarily lead to job satisfaction. Thus, both factors are distinct and separate (Lam & Baum 2001).

The relationship between managerial behavior and job satisfaction traces to studies that existed in the 1920s. At the time, researchers such as Bass (1990) said that favorable managerial behaviors were responsible for an increased sense of job satisfaction among employees. From such findings, several researchers emerged to investigate how managers could improve their behavior to increase the level of job satisfaction among their employees (Lam & Baum 2001). It was therefore unsurprising for some researchers, such as Yousef (2000) and Oshagbemi (1999) to propose several ways to explain how managers could improve their leadership styles to maximize the benefits of improved job satisfaction. Such researchers affirmed the fact that managerial behaviors affected job satisfaction (Yousef 2000; Oshagbemi 1999). They also said the theories that explained job satisfaction in western countries still applied to non-western countries.

A close look at the above finding singles out the autocratic leadership style as having the worst impact on employee job satisfaction. In the same manner, Yousef (2000) and Oshagbemi (1999) say the laissez-faire leadership style cultivates a lesser job satisfaction than the participative leadership style or the democratic leadership style. A study conducted in Western Australia affirms the above findings as well because it shows that when managers adopt the democratic and participative leadership styles, they cultivate a high level of job satisfaction (Bass 1990). Although some researchers say there is no difference between western and non-western studies, after conducting independent studies in Iranian hospitals, Al-Ababneh (2013) said the correlation between job satisfaction and managerial behavior was indirect. Similar studies conducted in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also showed that the laissez-faire leadership style had a negative correlation with job satisfaction (Al-Ababneh 2013). Despite the existence of such inconsistencies, Al-Ababneh (2013) says job satisfaction is an important indicator of employee commitment. Indeed, despite the few inconsistencies in research findings, several researchers have affirmed a direct correlation between job satisfaction and employee commitment.

Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Employee Commitment

Researchers such as Oshagbemi (2003) show that highly satisfied employees are normally committed to their employers and their organizations. From this background, Oshagbemi (2003) says the level of job satisfaction among a group of employees affects their level of commitment to organizational tasks, such as problem-solving, or the commitment/effort they accord different organizational tasks. Therefore, when employees have a high level of job satisfaction, they feel more satisfied with their work and no longer perceive it as “work,” but as an enjoyable activity.

Although studies affirm a direct relationship between job satisfaction and employee commitment, Al-Ababneh (2013) says this relationship stems from the foundational relationships between job satisfaction and managerial behaviors. To explain this assertion, Al-Ababneh (2013) first acknowledges that different managers adopt different leadership styles, based on their organizational duties and tasks. He then says, past researchers have affirmed the benefits of applying the right leadership style on employees because employees respond well to leadership styles that appeal to their work contexts (mainly the participative leadership style has emerged to have the most positive impact on employee productivity). The same relationship has extended to exploring the correlation between management leadership styles and employee job satisfaction. Al-Ababneh (2013) says when managers treat their employees well or meet employee expectations; they are likely to cultivate a sense of job satisfaction among their employees.

A study that evaluated the level of job satisfaction across a group of 220 respondents in several resort hotels in Jordan established that most employees were satisfied when their managers adopted the democratic leadership style (Al-Ababneh 2013). However, the same study established that the level of employee job satisfaction varied across the demographic characteristics of the managers. This finding is consistent with other studies, which show that the demographic characteristics of managers and employees often affect employee loyalty and commitment (Oshagbemi 2003).

A broad assessment of the above analysis shows that many researchers have affirmed the correlation between organizational commitment and managerial behaviors. For example, Kavanaugh & Ninemeier (2001) says flexible and participative leadership styles have a positive correlation with employee commitment. Indeed, as Manetje (2009) argues,

“The answer to the question of employee commitment, morale, loyalty and attachment may consist not only in providing motivators, but also to remove demotivators such as styles of management not suited to their context and to contemporary employee aspirations” (p. 51).

In sum, it is correct to say supportive management behaviors are synonymous with employee empowerment and high levels of employee commitment as well. Relative to this analysis, it is correct to say the influence of managerial styles on employee commitment stems from active leadership styles in an organization. Nonetheless, throughout the analyses on employee commitment and managerial behaviors, one independent issue that has emerged from some studies exploring the same issue is the role of understanding employee personal characteristics in the entire debate.

Employees’ Characteristics

Concern regarding employee personal characteristics on managerial attitudes and employee loyalty has multiplied through the changing dynamics of the workplace environment. Certainly, as organizations become more diverse and global, human resource (HR) departments continue to face serious issues regarding the management of a highly diverse workforce. Indeed, as Chen & Choi (2008) say, today’s organizations have a highly dynamic and highly diverse workforce, in terms of gender, ethnic affiliations, and racial backgrounds. When this diversity combines with the fast-paced work environment, managers face the difficult task of merging employee needs with organizational goals.

For example, there is a growing realization among managers of the widening conceptual and the attitudinal divide between “old” and “young” employees in an organization (Armstrong 2003). The generational divide in today’s organizations presents different classes in ideology and perceptions. These different representations spill over to how employees perceive their levels of job satisfaction and loyalty to an organization. For example, Chen & Choi (2008) say, “Younger employees might be sceptical about the value of institutional relationships during the early stage of their employment” (p. 1). The reverse would be true for older generation employees because they have a lower sense of skepticism about institutional relationships. The differing views of different employee demographics and their varying perceptual characteristics have intrigued many researchers.

As observed from the theoretical background of employee motivations, different groups of employees have different motivations for working in an organization. Their generational and demographic differences further compound this divide. From this background, Adeyemi-Bello (2001) emphasizes the importance of understanding the different sets of values that drive these employee groups. Relative to this assertion, Chen & Choi (2008) say,

“Understanding the differences between these generations relative to organizational behavioral constructs could result in the development of more effective human resource management strategies. Among these constructs, the individual “value systems” (including work values) is an important factor that impacts individual work related behaviors” (p. 1).

From the above assertion, Chen & Silverthorne (2005) believe the personal characteristics of an employee have a significant impact on the level of employee affective commitment to an organization and its managers. Most researchers have explored the impact of personal characteristics on employee organizational commitment by analyzing the demographic characteristics of employees and their influence on employee perceptions of managerial behavior. For example, Oshagbemi & Gill (2004) investigated the impact of employee personality on an organizational commitment by evaluating age, gender, and years of service. He reported that unfavorable managerial behaviors are less likely to bother older employees, who have accumulated many years of work in an organization, compared to young and “new” employees. He further added that “old” employees would therefore be committed to an organization, even though they may not receive the best treatment from their managers. Moreover, the same study showed that most employees who had risen the ranks of management (senior employees) were more likely to show increased organizational commitment, as opposed to employees who had yet to enjoy the benefits of upper-level management.

Armstrong (2003), also made a similar attempt to categorize employees into three groups “Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), Generation Xers (born between 1965 and 1977), and Millennials (born after 1977).” Some researchers have divided the employees into generation X and generation Y (Chen & Choi 2008). Adeyemi-Bello (2001) says both groups of employees have different interpretations of work-related constructs (for example, both groups of employees perceive work ethics differently). Broadly, most of the generation Y employees hold entry-level positions in the workplace, while most generation X employees hold senior-level positions in the workplace.

Again, age differences have surfaced in studies done by Oshagbemi & Gill (2004) and Chen & Choi (2008), as an important attribute in influencing the perceptions of work values in the organization. For example, Oshagbemi & Gill (2004) interviewed a set of hotel managers and found out that workplace values shifted across different age sets of managers. After evaluating six value dimensions, the researchers also established that older managers greatly valued supervisory relationships and material rewards from the workplace. Observers say employees often rank their work values differently from their managers because they are more influenced by intrinsic interpersonal variables such as, “ maturity, personal preference, values; and situational variables (for example, family responsibilities and career opportunities)” (Chen & Choi 2008, p. 595). Oshagbemi & Gill (2004) also say life and work experiences affect varying age groups of employees differently. Therefore, they may perceive their levels of commitment and loyalty differently as well.

Central to the understanding of employee personal characteristics and their perceptions of managerial behavior is work values. Indeed, as Oshagbemi & Gill (2004) say, individual sets of values often influence their beliefs and attitudes in the workplace environment. The importance of employee values has also mirrored the development of employee perceptions regarding career development. Donald Super (cited in Oshagbemi & Gill 2004) is among the first groups of researchers who introduced the concept of work values in the set of occupational theories introduced in the early 1950s. Past researchers have evaluated work values by analyzing them in three categories, as described by Chen & Choi (2008) – “structure (components of the work values domain), correlates (personal, social, or organizational variables that relate with work values), and cultural differences (work values influenced by national culture)” (p. 595). In sum, Oshagbemi & Gill (2004) say, work values affect how employees perceive their commitment to an organization and particularly, how managers treat them in the organization. Like work values, analysts have had trouble trying to ascertain the extent that the same values or measures of managerial behaviors affect employee loyalty and commitment. This difficulty has opened a new debate regarding how people would measure employee loyalty and commitment.

How Do we Measure Employee Loyalty and Commitment?

Albeit researchers affirm that different factors affect employee loyalty and commitment to an organization, the greatest impediment to understanding the real impact of managerial behavior on employee loyalty is the difficulty in measuring employee loyalty. Indeed, the greatest difficulty of measuring employee loyalty is the fact that it is intangible and difficult to ascertain. Therefore, unlike other organizational variables such as profits and revenue, it is difficult to ascertain the true extent of employee loyalty. Informed by this dilemma, Wharton University (2012) says,

“The issue has been to put a dollar value on this: How much is it worth if employees consistently place the company’s interest ahead of other factors in those situations where they have the discretion? Probably a lot, but it is hard to put into dollar terms” (p. 6).

Besides Wharton University (2012), other researchers, such as Cobbs (cited in Reisenwitz & Lyer 2007), have acknowledged the difficulty in presenting one measure for understanding employee loyalty and commitment. Notably, they say people use unclear measures to evaluate employee loyalty (Reisenwitz & Lyer 2007). Indeed, instead of measuring the true impact of employee loyalty, they only outline what they “hope” denotes employee loyalty. Despite this difficulty, Wharton University (2012) still believes that using employee loyalty, as a reliable metric for measuring organizational performance is valid.

At the center of these analyses are questions regarding if researchers need to ascertain the level of employee commitment and loyalty, while some managers only require their employees to do what their managers tell them to do. As Reisenwitz & Lyer (2007) affirm, it is still vital for researchers to understand the relevance of employee commitment and loyalty to their organizational activities because today’s workplace environment cannot have managers who consistently look over their backs. From this background, managers must understand how their behavior affects employees’ commitment and loyalty.

Methodology

Research Design

This paper has relied on a mixed research approach (qualitative and quantitative approaches) for conducting the study. The inclusion of the qualitative design stemmed from the need to include an attitudinal analysis of employee opinions, while the quantitative design strived to assess these opinions into measurable units. Mainly, the quantitative research design aimed to answer the research question by offering a framework for understanding the extent that managerial behaviors affected employee commitment and behavior. As will be seen in subsequent sections of this chapter, the qualitative design helped to understand the interpretive components of these responses. Therefore, to have a holistic, interpretive, and predictive analysis, this paper sought to use both approaches (mixed research approach) in the study.

Participants

This study included the contributions of 15 participants from different branches of the Plan Care organization. Since Plan Care has 16 branches, spread throughout London, the study chose five employees from every branch to have a representative sample of employee views regarding managerial behavior. The study selected the employees through random sampling so that an accurate and unbiased attitudinal analysis of managerial behavior would suffice. Indeed, it was crucial to adopt the random sampling technique because any biased technique of sampling the respondents would equally lead to a biased interpretation of employee attitudes towards management. Therefore, the probability of choosing the participants was equal for all employees.

The mean age of the participants was 30 years. Based on the principles of random sampling, there was no gender-specific criterion used to sample the respondents. Convincing the respondents to participate in the study was easy because being an employee of Plan Care; I had a prior relationship with most of the employees. The goodwill shared with some of the employees also helped to convince the respondents to participate in the study, regardless of the ethical implications of the process. For example, the participants were convinced that the study would uphold their confidentiality during the entire process of data collection.

Data Collection

The main tool for collecting data was questionnaires. The respondents received the questionnaires as surveys. Several motivations informed the choice of administering the questionnaires as surveys. For example, as Bauer & Law (2008) say, surveys are easy to administer and dispatch because they may not require the continuous presence of the researcher and may take minimal time to complete. Another motivation for using the survey method was its accommodation of web-based techniques for gathering data. This was the main motivation for pursuing this method of data collection.

The surveys gathered data using a seven-point Likert scale. Therefore, when the participants responded to the survey questions, they had to base their responses across a continuum of seven choices that ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (see appendix one) (Rivera & DiPietro 2008). This continuum of responses captured the intensity of their responses, thereby giving a reliable analysis and basis to evaluate their perceptions and attitudes. As opposed to using the five-point Likert scale, the reliance on the seven-point Likert scale stood out as the most reliable measure for assessing employee opinions and attitudes regarding managerial behavior. Indeed, Chen & Choi (2008) say the seven-point Likert scale has better validity and reliability than the five-point Likert scale. Nonetheless, the main motivation for using the seven-point Likert scale was to give the respondents enough choices for answering the survey questions. Relative to this understanding, there was a realization that if the respondents failed to find the best option, which expressed their feelings, they would choose the “next best alternative” (an undesirable outcome) (Bauer & Law 2008). Eventually, this would have undermined the credibility and validity of the research findings (the use of the seven-point Likert scale, therefore, improved the reliability and validity of the research findings).

Like other data collection techniques, the survey method presented some difficulties in the collection of data. Most of the drawbacks centered on affirming the reliability of the survey data. For example, there was no guarantee that the respondents would provide accurate answers because the survey questions mainly probed their opinions regarding managerial conduct and therefore some respondents would be hesitant to provide responses that would portray them in an unfavorable light. Moreover, since some of the questions presented in the surveys were closed-ended, their validity was significantly lower than if the questions were open-ended. Finally, some of the responses given in the survey could lack clarity because of interpretive variances. For example, some respondents may perceive the answers “partially agree” and “undecided” differently (Bauer & Law 2008).

The design of the questionnaire greatly depended on the importance of understanding and addressing the research question and objectives. Here, there was a careful recognition of the fact that an analysis of what would be included, or excluded, in the survey would be instrumental in meeting the objectives of the study. Although there was no difficulty experienced in convincing the employees to participate in the study, most of them had varying demands on when they would be available to complete the survey. From this challenge, there was a need to provide web-based versions of the questionnaires to provide the participants with adequate time flexibility to complete the questionnaires. The research realized several advantages from using the online questionnaires. For example, it reduced the cost of gathering data from the participants. Indeed, as Chen & Choi (2008) affirm, online questionnaires have very low overheads, as they do not require the physical printing, or delivery, of questionnaires.

The use of online questionnaires also provided an opportunity to gather real-time data because of the automation of the entire data collection process. Moreover, the automation process made it easy to streamline the data and analyze it. Finally, the most important advantage of using the online questionnaire was the flexibility it offered in designing the questionnaires. The greatest drawback of the online questionnaire was the missing presence of the interviewer during the data collection process. Therefore, it was impossible to get clarifications regarding the views given by the respondents. Jar-Allah (2000) says this drawback may lead to the collection of less-reliable data.

Data Analysis

The main data analysis technique used in this paper was the interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) method. This method was appropriate for the study because of its prowess in understanding human perceptions and attitudes. For example, Smith & Osborn (2003) say the data analysis method is useful when providing insight into how people make sense of different issues in their organization, or social, contexts. The IPA method is also distinct from other data analysis methods because unlike previous approaches that use only one premise for data analysis, the IPA technique uses different premises (psychological, interpretative, and ideographic premises) for the same purpose.

Since the IPA technique is useful in providing an insight into people’s experiences, the data analysis method was highly appropriate for sampling, analyzing, and making meaning of employee experiences regarding managerial behaviors at Plan Care. Moreover, since the IPA technique can draw reliable findings from a small sample population (Smith & Osborn 2003), the small sample of respondents used in this study affirms the reliability of the findings. The IPA technique was therefore useful in evaluating how a small sample of people, with shared experiences (employees of Plan Care), made sense of management behaviors and how they reacted to them. Although its usability has mainly been concentrated on psychological studies, this paper’s focus on employee’s attitudes and perceptions inform the use of the IPA technique in management research. Indeed, as Shaw (2001) says, the interpretive phenomenological analysis does not perceive people as passive perceivers of objective reality, but, rather, as people that observe, analyze, and interpret their environmental factors in a way that makes sense to them. This process had a direct relation to how employees perceived managerial behavior because, through the treatment of employees by managers of Plan Care, the employees were able to perceive the same behaviors and deduce an objective reality that makes sense to them.

Comprehensively, the process of data analysis was unique in the sense that it did not set out to test a pre-defined hypothesis. An open-ended stance was therefore predominant throughout the data analysis process. Stated differently, the data analysis processes mainly depended on the researcher’s preconceptions about the data. This focus was important because it helped to maintain focus on the experiential opinions/results given by the respondents. Later, the coding of results occurred with some considerable detail, such that references and comparisons occurred between the responses given by the participants and the interpretations made from such responses. Thus, the main ideology that prevailed throughout the data analysis process was one that included intense inquiry and meaning-making (from the same inquiry). Therefore, the result of the data analysis process was a culmination of an attempt to make sense of the respondents’ organizational experiences.

Steps in the Data Analysis Process

Unlike other data analysis methods, the use of the IPA technique provided a bottom-up approach to analyzing respondents’ opinions because it provided an opportunity for the researchers to generate coded data, as opposed to completely rely on pre-existing theories to come up with specific themes in the data analysis process (Smith & Osborn 2003). After the data transcription process, there was an opportunity to interact with the text. This process led to the annotation (coding) of the experiences of the participants and the predominant managerial behavior exercised at Plan Care. As the process of data analysis gained momentum, the research cataloged the emerging codes. Subsequently, emerging patterns of interaction emerged. The emerging patterns simply outlined the thematic representations of the researchers’ opinions and experiences (which represented similar ideologies, thoughts, and feelings portrayed by the respondents).

The themes that appeared in the data analysis process, therefore, symbolized important issues for the participants. Simplistic interpretations of such important issues included identifying “objects of concern” or “issues of meaning” to the participants’ organizational experiences. The data analysis process also included grouping some of these themes into greater “super-ordinate themes” that captured a variety of patterns that emerged from analyzing the experiences of the participants. Lastly, it is crucial to mention that different factors affected the quality of the data gathered from the employees. Among the most notable factors included the organizational climate (trust, confidentiality, and participation), managerial support, clarity of purpose, and the correct choice of administration.

Ethical Implications

Since this study relied on human subjects as the main source of research information, several ethical implications arose. Most of these ethical implications strived to protect human subjects from abuse. Based on this concern, confidentiality, privacy, and consent issues emerged as the predominant ethical issues.

Consent

Based on the recommendations of the Nuremberg Code (cited in Bauer & Law 2008), the respondents gave their informed consent before participating in the study. Furthermore, before the researcher allowed the respondents to participate in the study, they had to understand the risks and benefits of participating in the research (full disclosure). A key ethical principle that emerged in this analysis was the principle of autonomy because the researcher treated all the participants as individual entities that had the will of making informed choices. Lastly, to obtain consent from the respondents, the researcher did not coerce any of the respondents to participate in the study. Similarly, none of the respondents received financial motivation/rewards to participate in the study. Their decision to do so was therefore purely voluntary.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Since all respondents were employees of Plan Care, there was a strong need for the study to maintain their anonymity. To do so, none of the respondents were required to state their name, or demographic characteristics, that would reveal their identity. Moreover, all the respondents understood that the main goal of the study was to gather information about the correlation between managerial behaviors and their attitudes. Thus, the respondents understood that there was no personal or commercial motivation for including them in the research. They also understood that their involvement in the research was mainly for academic and informative purposes.

Limitations of the Study

The greatest limitation of this study was its indicative nature, as opposed to its practical nature. In other words, the findings were only indicative of the extent that managerial behaviors affected employee loyalty and commitment to the organization. Variations may therefore occur regarding the “real” predictive assessments of managerial behaviors on employee loyalty and commitment. Furthermore, since this paper mainly relied on the managerial behaviors of Plan Care organization and the perceived experiences of its employees, it may be difficult to generalize the findings of the study beyond organizations that share similar characteristics as Plan Care does, or share the same managerial behaviors of Plan Care’s managers.

Findings

Since the survey contained two parts, for purposes of easy comprehension, this chapter explains the study’s findings according to the two parts (Part A and B).

Part A

The findings of this study hinged on reporting the participants’ responses based on the framework of the research objectives. Indeed, the nature of the survey helped to answer the research objectives by focusing on key areas of interest that sought to seek the respondents’ views regarding the management behaviors that address the research questions. Through this framework, the survey mainly focused on exploring the respondents’ views regarding job satisfaction, managerial behaviors, employee commitment, leadership styles, and employee motivation.

The first component of the survey sought the informants’ views regarding their level of job satisfaction. Here, the employees reported a 75% negative response when they had to state if they felt satisfied with their work at Plan Care, or not. In detail, 75% of the respondents said they “strongly disagreed” with the opinion that they were satisfied with their jobs at Plan Care. The rest of the views given by the respondents ranged from “partially disagree” to “disagree.” These findings largely explain why most of the respondents also differed with the opinion that they understood how their work efforts contributed to the company’s bottom-line operations. However, five respondents said they “partially agreed” with the fact that they understood how their work contributed to the company’s bottom-line operations. The same group of respondents polled that they were “undecided” regarding the fact that their jobs derived some sense of personal commitment. However, none of the respondents polled affirmatively regarding the fact that their jobs derived some sense of personal commitment. 90% of the respondents “disagreed” with this fact. Moreover, one respondent said he “strongly disagreed” with this fact.

Surprisingly, when the respondents had to say if they enjoyed coming to work, most of them polled that they were “undecided” regarding this issue. Only two respondents said they did not enjoy coming to work at all. The same two respondents also said they do not have a good working relationship with their colleagues. However, all the respondents who said they were undecided about if they enjoyed coming to work, or not, said they had a good working relationship with colleagues. Furthermore, three members of this group of respondents “strongly agreed” that they had a good working relationship with their colleagues. It was also unsurprising for the same group of respondents to “strongly agree” with the fact that they were strongly committed to serving the company. Similarly, the respondents who “strongly disagreed” with the fact that they had a good working relationship with colleagues also expressed the same attitude when they had to state if they were committed to serving the company. When the respondents had to state if Plan Care managers allowed them to strike a good working relationship between work and personal life, they responded negatively. Two-thirds of the respondents “disagreed” with this fact, while one respondent was “undecided” about the same issue.

To gather the respondents’ views regarding the survey, most of them “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the fact that the survey would help the managers to understand their levels of job satisfaction. An analysis, of the respondents’ level of commitment, shows that most of the employees were either “undecided” or dissatisfied with the fact that they were committed to the organization. Since only three respondents were “undecided” about their level of job commitment to the organization, most of the respondents polled a lack of commitment to the organization. Affirmatively, most of the informants “disagreed” with the fact that they were committed to the organization. The respondents who polled a lack of commitment to the organization attributed their sentiments to the unsupportive organizational culture of the organization. In detail, most of the respondents agreed with the fact that organizational culture was unsupportive to employees. However, when the respondents had to state if they were accountable for their work, or not, and if they were committed to improving the quality of their services, or not, all of them responded affirmatively. 80% of the respondents said they were accountable for their work and remained committed to improving the services of the organization.

The second component of the survey sought to understand the employees’ views regarding leadership styles. Although most of the respondents said, they did not approve of the existing managerial behaviors, a third of the informants said the company’s leadership was effective in developing its goals and integrating them into the company’s action plan. Most of the respondents who shared this belief either “partially agreed” or “agreed” with this fact. The same group of respondents also polled similarly when they had to state if they believed the organization was heading in the right direction. Two respondents held differing views because they “disagreed” with the fact that the organization was heading in the right direction.

The same group of respondents also “disagreed” with the fact that the organization’s leadership was committed to processing improvement. The other respondents also “disagreed” with this fact, but they expressed reserved levels of disagreement. Comprehensively, most of the respondents partially disagreed with the opinion that the organization’s leadership was committed to processing improvement. Interestingly, all the respondents “disagreed” with the fact that the organization’s leadership was able to assess the situations correctly and accurately. From this background, it was also unsurprising for most of the respondents to poll that they were “undecided” regarding their confidence in the organization’s leadership. Furthermore, most of the respondents were also “undecided” regarding the fact that the organization’s leadership was committed to fulfilling organizational objectives.

The third facet of the survey sought to report the respondents’ views regarding managerial behavior. Broadly, most of the respondents did not have a favorable view of the company’s management. Most of the respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the fact that the company’s management understood their work environment and processes. Except for one respondent, all the respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the fact that the managers involved them in the decision-making processes of the organization. Compared to the number of respondents who believed the organization’s managers did not have a clear understanding of the workplace environment and processes, few respondents polled negatively concerning management’s value for honesty and candid feedback. A third of the respondents said they were “undecided” regarding if the managers valued honest and candid feedback. The rest of the respondents either partially agreed, or partially disagreed, with this fact.

When the respondents had to say if their managers included them in the decision-making process of the organization, or not, most of them believed that management excluded them from the decision-making process. This way, a few respondents believed they had any control of their work environments. Through such sentiments, it, therefore, came as no surprise that most of the participants believed that management did not empower them. Only three respondents said they partially disagree with this fact. The rest of the respondents either “strongly agreed,” or “agreed” with this fact. The same group of respondents also believed that management did not care about them. However, when the respondents had to state if they believed if the company’s management had a proper grasp of the organization’s objectives and vision, most of the participants responded affirmatively. Nonetheless, there was a discord between the understanding of organizational goals and their realization because more than a third of the respondents said management did not promote teamwork, or foster organizational spirit.

Part B

The last section of the survey sought a qualitative understanding of managerial behavior and employee loyalty. However, it is important to say that based on the negative review of management and leadership behaviors, most of the respondents highlighted different ways of improving managerial behaviors. However, the creation of a favorable environment for working and a better understanding of employee attitudes and circumstances emerged as the top issues that bothered most employees. One of them said,

“Management should stop being overly controlling and instead, be flexible to employee needs. They should also stop imposing their decisions and wishes on us, like we have no value to contribute. A more balanced approach to handling employee, management, and organizational issues should be adopted to ensure all stakeholders in the organization feel respected and valued”

When the respondents had to state how they believed management could better improve the contentious issues, most of the respondents said adopting a consultative approach to management would help to ease “the burden.” One male employee remarked,

“Management should stop adopting a “carrot and stick” approach in the organization. They should be more transparent and consultative when managing employees. We all need a little respect and courtesy. Some managers are too arrogant and inappropriate with some employees. They need to cut back of some of this stuff.”

Another employee said,

“I do not have an issue with how they pay us, or implement their reward and compensation policies. This is the only benefit we enjoy here. They should work on the more humanistic and attitudinal aspects of governance, especially how they treat their employees. I have personally listened to employee accounts of when they intend to quit their jobs. Some of my colleagues are also thinking of the same. Sometimes, we feel a little unappreciated and demeaned. We do so much work for this organization and I believe if management only went out of their way and treated us better, there would be no problem. How hard can it be?”

The above sentiments informed why most of the employees polled that they were disloyal to the company. Although some of their sentiments were strong, significant areas of interest emerged in the study regarding how the employees felt management could improve the working environment. Some of these findings are compared to previous studies, but others are unique to the respondents of Plan Care. The analysis chapter explores some of these unique findings.

Discussion/Analysis

Dominant Themes

The findings of this study show that poor managerial behaviors characterized the participants’ experiences at Plan Care. Their open discontent for managerial behaviors also mirrored the dissatisfaction with the organization’s leadership style. The respondents reported low levels of job satisfaction and loyalty to the organization. Certainly, most of their responses/sentiments stemmed from poor managerial conduct that bordered on a lack of appreciation for employee contributions and a lack of engagement of employees on different levels of organizational control (including decision-making). Based on the patterns of responses provided by the participants, the lack of appreciation for employee contributions and the need for involving employees in organizational activities emerged as the common issues in the study. These issues informed the lack of job satisfaction among a greater sample of the respondents interviewed. Job satisfaction was therefore a dominant theme throughout the data analysis process. Except for a few respondents, most of the employees affirmed a low level of job satisfaction, which stemmed from poor managerial behaviors.

The other dominant recurring theme was poor managerial behavior. Indeed, most of the respondents felt that management’s attitude towards them created a hostile environment for work. Most of the employees also believed that the company’s management had concentrated many organizational powers to upper-level management and excluded most of them in the decision-making process of the organization. Inappropriate managerial behavior and poor treatment of employees also emerged as common patterns in the employees’ responses. The only positive attributes that showed contrary attitudes were proper compensation and reward policies adopted by management. Otherwise, most of the respondents affirmed poor managerial behavior as a big obstacle in the employees’ quest to achieve organizational goals.

Close to the theme of poor managerial behavior was the theme of poor leadership styles. Although most of the respondents believed that management’s performance in leadership was relatively “okay,” still, they showed contempt to the predominant leadership styles (the failure to merge employee contributions and organizational vision provides an example of this fact). Moreover, the lack of managerial commitment to fulfill organizational goals also emerged to explain the respondents’ contempt for the dominant leadership practices in the organization.

Lastly, disloyalty to the organization also emerged as another dominant theme throughout the data analysis process. Most of the respondents believed the company’s management was not properly appreciating their contributions and therefore, they did not see any need to be loyal to the organization. High employee turnover and wishes to leave the organization were common patterns that informed this theme. Certainly, there was a sense of lack of commitment and a willingness to look for better work opportunities among the sampled respondents sampled. The responses also did not shy away from giving accounts of the experiences and frustrations of other employees about the existing managerial and leadership styles.

These themes birthed a larger super-ordinate theme of low employee motivation.

Based on the responses and attitudes of the employees to management’s behavior, a strong sense of enthusiasm to perform organizational tasks was absent from the employees. The most positive responses bordered on uncertain attitudes and thoughts regarding the willingness to work in the organization. Besides that, most of the employees were demoralized. Broadly, if we sum the attitudes and responses given by the participants, it would be correct to say most of the respondents were “alarmingly demoralised.” Low levels of job satisfaction, contempt for management, and leadership styles are only a few of the pieces of evidence that inform this opinion. Therefore, the findings derived from the surveys affirm an indirect correlation between poor managerial behaviors and job satisfaction.

Besides the contempt expressed by the respondents regarding the predominant managerial and leadership styles at Plan Care, an interesting observation that arose in this analysis was the appreciation for the reward and compensation program of the organization. Moreover, some employees said they were still committed to improving the quality of organizational processes and believed that the company’s leadership focused on process improvement. Some even said they would uphold a sense of accountability in their tasks. Comparatively, these remarks differed from the respondents’ sense of contempt for managerial styles and the dissatisfaction with the workplace environment. Broadly, the difference in opinion regarding leadership and management facets show that the respondents did not believe all was lost in the organization. The slight sense of optimism regarding certain managerial practices (like standard pay) shows the management was doing some things right. It was therefore unsurprising for one respondent to say a positive compensation package was the only positive thing he looked forward to enjoying in the organization.

The above analogy shows that although most employees would disapprove of managerial behaviors, they would still be willing to work towards changing the situation before they take drastic actions, like leaving the organization. This should be a wake-up call to management because the findings show that they can still salvage some issues concerning employee attitudes and perceptions. The same analysis shows that poor managerial behavior may not necessarily affect all aspects of organizational activities. Based on the respondents’ views, it is easy to point out that the most severely affected aspects of governance that poor managerial behavior affects are employee-employer relations. The technical aspects of governance (rules and policies) may therefore remain intact (unscathed). However, the greatest managerial concern that arises in this study is the underplaying of human relations in the workplace and its importance in achieving organizational goals.

Comparison to McGregor’s Theory X and Y

This study’s findings affirm the existing link between theory X managers and low levels of job satisfaction. Based on the opinions and attitudes expressed by the employees, it is correct to say that they were mainly experiencing management behaviors that stemmed from theory X ideologies (Davidson & McPhail 2011). For example, evidence of little or no inclusion of employee opinions in the decision-making process, top-heavy management styles, and minimal delegation of authority shows that the main predominant managerial style at Plan care stems from theory X ideologies. Although researchers like Kim & Jung-Eun (2012) say theory X management styles may be unavoidable, it is important to show that its use in service-oriented industries is highly unproductive. Stated differently, theory X managers work best in highly mechanistic environments where close supervision and constant managerial presence is vital (Yang 2012). However, for organizations like Plan Care, which cares for the elderly, a top-heavy management style is insensitive to the plight of workers. Moreover, although 50 years of research has proved that theory X managers may still yield productivity, research by Liu & Huang (2012) show that theory X managers eventually experience lower productivities than theory Y managers do. To affirm this opinion they say, “Many managers tend towards Theory X, and generally get poor results—especially over the longer term” (p. 477).

Since most of the respondents detested the practice of theory X management styles, it is inevitable to compare this management style with theory Y management style. Based on the recommendations given by the research participants, regarding how best to improve management processes, it is crucial to mention that most of their recommendations centered on adopting theory Y management styles, as an alternative framework for managing the organization. The main evidence supporting this fact is the emphasis on humanistic attributes, as being the greatest “missing factor” in the existing management style. Indeed, most of the respondents believed that the company’s management was inconsiderate to the plight of workers and would often treat their employees with a lot of insensitivity. The respondents, therefore, proposed more employee inclusion and better terms of engagement between employees and employers. This pattern is a key tenet of theory Y management style (Lub & Nije 2012).

More specifically, the theory Y management style provides employees with an opportunity to grow and develop. Therefore, instead of the managers viewing the employees as a “cost” that needs constant monitoring and evaluation (according to theory X principles), the adoption of theory Y ideologies provides employees with an opportunity for managers to treat them as “equals” in the organization. Therefore, instead of managers perceiving them as instruments of production, management would regard them as valuable stakeholders of the organization. Furthermore, unlike the theory X management style, managers of Plan Care would be able to build positive relationships that their employees seek. This way, employees would believe they are working towards creating a positive work environment. The above findings, affirm the negative correlation between theory X management styles and job satisfaction (which has existed in several previous studies). The findings of this paper, therefore, affirm this negative correlation, based on the observation that most employees expressed a low sense of loyalty and satisfaction with their work.

Comparison to Maslow’s Philosophy

The findings of this study emphasize Maslow’s ideas in his hierarchy of needs analysis. Particularly, Maslow shows that when employees are satisfied with lower-level needs such as security, better pay (and the likes); they rise to a higher level of need that borders on the aesthetic values of human relationships (Dye & Mills 2005). They need to feel loved and appreciated (or treated well) emerges in this analysis because it is an employee’s top concern. Therefore, after comparing the responses given by the participants and Maslow’s analysis, it is correct to say the employees mainly expressed social and esteem needs (third and fourth levels of Maslow’s hierarchy). Comparatively, based on the few positive remarks made by the employees about Plan Care’s compensation and reward programs, it is also correct to say the participants had already met their physiological and safety needs. If these findings expanded, to cover commitment and loyalty issues, it would emerge that social and esteem needs had the greatest impact on employee loyalty and commitment.

Job Satisfaction and Employee Motivation Levels

Broadly, a lower level of employee commitment at Plan Care affirms the findings of previous researches, which have shown that employee commitment and loyalty are the products of several intrinsic and external organisational factors. Although this study has evaluated this issue on three fronts – job satisfaction, motivational levels, and employee turnover, Insightlink Communications (2013) says,

“A combination of factors influences employees’ decisions to stay at their current job. Contributing factors include satisfying work, a sense of job security, clear opportunities for advancement, a compelling corporate mission combined with the ability to contribute to the organisation’s success, and a feeling that their skills are being effectively used and challenged” (p. 7).

Most of the factors expressed in the above statement have been expressed by the respondents (albeit indirectly). Most of them depict a low level of employee satisfaction with their job and a sense of contempt for managerial behaviours, especially regarding the treatment of employees. Hersey & Blanchard (2001) say employees who feel that their managers treat them well and cater to their needs are more likely to stay with the employer. However, at Plan Care, there is little evidence in this regard. Instead, the employees feel that management is highly rigid and insensitive to the plight of workers. For example, most of the employees feel the management does not help them to strike a good work-life balance.

Based on the objectives of this study, it is crucial to point out three main findings of this paper. The first finding stems from the fact that poor managerial behaviour has a profound impact on job satisfaction. An assessment of the survey result shows that poor managerial behaviour has a “very strong” impact on job satisfaction. Therefore compared to other assessments of employee loyalty and commitment cited in this paper, job satisfaction poses the highest vulnerability to poor managerial behaviour. Although it is difficult to measure employee loyalty and commitment, the seven-point Likert scale used to measure employee attitude leaves no doubt that poor managerial behaviour “very strongly” affects job satisfaction.

The second finding of this report shows that poor managerial behaviour has a “strong” impact on employee motivation. However, employee motivation manifests as an “umbrella” attitude that expresses employee sentiments towards poor managerial attitudes. In other words, the low level of motivation is a secondary result of poor managerial behaviours. Managers could use this assessment to see that an improvement of managerial behaviours would secondarily improve employee motivation. Furthermore, unlike other measures of employee commitment and loyalty used in this study, employee motivation emerges as the most perceptual factor that highlights poor managerial behaviours. Thus, employee motivation is the most volatile indicator of employee contempt for poor managerial behaviour. This realisation shows that managerial efforts should not concentrate on improving employee motivation and instead concentrate on aspects of managerial conduct that affects the factors affecting employee motivation. In the context of this study, such factors should include an improvement of employer-employee relations, inclusion of employees in the decision-making process, and an improvement of the work environment.

The third and most important finding stems from the realisation that theory X management styles do not yield the best results for organisations that centre on human relationships as a prerequisite for organisational success. Plan Care is one such organisation that depends on customer-employee relations for its organisational success. Indeed, since the organisation provides primary care to elderly citizens, it is important for employees to demonstrate positive human relational traits. It is however difficult to do so if their employers do not share the same traits, or exude the same friendliness, they are supposed to exude to the customers. The interaction between employers, employees, and their customers therefore appear as a cyclic interaction where the contributions of all stakeholders (mostly employers and employees) ensure the proper functioning of this circle. An authoritative management style (theory X managers) negates such an outcome (Erkutlu & Chafra 2006).

An adoption of theory Y management styles would therefore solve some of the inherent managerial-employee problems witnessed at Plan Care. Other companies have successfully adopted this methodology with success. For example, companies in Canada have reported increased employee commitment and loyalty through the adoption of positive managerial behaviours. Indeed, Vancouver City Trading Union (VanCity) is one company, in Canada, that has greatly appreciated the need for embracing positive managerial behaviour for improved employee commitment and loyalty. The company’s management has taken proactive steps to socialise with employees and exude positive managerial traits by interacting with them informally (Goff 2001). For example, the company’s top management recently dressed like famous movie stars to reinforce some of the business’s key pillars. In one interview, the company’s chief executive officer (CEO) said, “I was dressed like Morpheus who played a scene from The Matrix by offering viewers either the red pill or blue pill to accept VanCity’s new objectives” (Goff 2001, p. 99).

Independently, Industry Canada (2013) says the VanCity’s management goes beyond employee’s expectations to maintain their satisfaction and loyalty. It is from this background that Goff (2001) says, “Along with producing offbeat videos, the company has hosted award nights, family picnics, and an annual costume gala attended by over 1,000 staff” (Goff 2001, p. 99). The company has also created a positive work experience for its employees by providing them with new opportunities and flexibility for boosting their careers (Industry Canada 2013). Such efforts have paid off because observers rate the company as the best company to work for in Canada (Industry Canada 2013). Related to the positive press received by the company, VanCity has increased employee loyalty to the company. In fact, Goff (2001) says the culture of employee freedom in the workplace is responsible for the more than 10,000 applications received by the company every year. The company’s employee turnover is also exceptionally low (below the industry’s average) (Industry Canada 2013). Relative to this fact, one employee said, “It is a dynamic environment and you get a sense of accomplishment” (Goff 2001, p. 99). When the company’s accounting officer was asked if he would one day leave the company, he answered, “No, they would have to push me out. It is worth every minute of it here” (Goff 2001, p. 99).

The positive review that VanCity has received from portraying positive managerial behaviours has created a lot of curiosity to observers who wonder why the company would go through all the trouble of pleasing their employees at the expense of the company (Industry Canada 2013). To answer this question, the company said they do it because it is an ethical practice and a core tenet of the company’s business model. The company’s CEO also said their business success largely depends on the attitudes of its employees (Industry Canada 2013).

According to Hancer & George (2003), managers need to realise that today, employees are not willing to stand by their employers as “loyal soldiers” (as it was in the past). Instead, they should understand the need to earn employee loyalty, as opposed to assuming they would automatically enjoy this benefit by providing proper compensation packages. Indeed, most employees today are looking at their employers and their jobs as a means for achieving personal goals and not institutions where they merely earn a living. Therefore, employers should position their organisations as places where employees would feel they could best achieve their personal and career objectives.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Having a capable management with a clear focus is among the top requirements for cultivating a strong sense of commitment and loyalty among employees in an organisation. However, this requirement may be independent of employee attitudes and perceptions if managers distant themselves from this direction and pursue and independent direction for the organisation. This is the case with Plan Care because although the organisation has a clear leadership and management focus, its top leadership has not shown enough commitment to realise this focus. By deviating from the initial focus of providing quality services to its customers, the management-centred leadership styles adopted by the organisation amounts to the creation of a new focus (management focus) that barely considers employee or organisational concerns. To this extent, the credibility of the managers comes under scrutiny.

Based on the nature of the responses gathered in this study, managers should understand that most workers are sceptical and cynical of management. Therefore, without a strong direction and commitment towards specific organisational goals, they run the risk of evoking feelings of contempt and confusion among employees. Moreover, by failing to cultivate a strong relationship between employees and management, managers develop a sense of mistrust that erodes employee commitment and loyalty. Moreover, employees develop a strong sense of discord with management if management consistently excludes them from the daily running of the organisation. The same outcome manifests when managers treat their employees with contempt, or as “unequal” partners. The contempt and dissatisfaction expressed by employees highlights a common mistake made by managers in the hospitality industry – failing to heed to employee needs. It is therefore unsurprising to see that the findings of this paper emphasise the high employee turnover that characterises the hospitality industry.

From the above analyses, it is unsurprising to see that employee commitment is important in improving a company’s bottom-line. However, like Plan Care, many organisations face difficulties trying to satisfy their employees. However, such challenges should not distract managers from increasing the desire of employees to remain loyal and committed to their organisations. Particularly, devising strategies that would increase employee loyalty, as opposed to devising strategies that would improve employee retention, should preoccupy the time of employers. This balanced strategy should ensure that most employers benefit from the potential of employees to increase organisational revenues, and the potential economic benefits they would enjoy by maintaining a productive workforce. Therefore, instead of managers focusing their attention on retaining employees who may have decided to look for better employment opportunities, they should strive to cultivate a sense of employee loyalty to retain valuable employees. Indeed, the most successful employers are those that wake up to the needs of the current working environment.

Comprehensively, throughout the analysis of this study, improvements in employee commitment and loyalty have a better chance of thriving in an environment run by theory Y managers. Particularly, theory Y management styles remind managers that most employees can still perform well if they treat them well. Indeed, similar to the principles proposed by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the theory Y management style reminds managers that higher order needs have the most profound impact on employee loyalty and commitment. While employing theory Y management styles, managers should also understand that a participative style would complement this change. Particularly, adopting this new lens of management style would ensure employees are included in the decision-making process of the organisation.

By delegating their power to employees, managers would be empowering them to feel better about their jobs and eventually create a sense of ownership among the employees to the organisation. The managers should also give a strong priority to improve the workplace environment for the employees so that they feel comfortable in their work. This change would eliminate small issues of contempt regarding the work environment and encourage employees to be proud of their jobs. In the same breadth of understanding, managers should not shy away from regularly expressing their appreciation for employee work. This effort should stem from a new belief that signifies the importance of management to develop employee skills and talents, as an organisational asset. These changes would easily eliminate feelings of contempt and keep the employees motivated to work and stay in the organisation.

Since this paper largely bases its findings on employee views and responses, future research should strive to investigate the same phenomenon through the view of the managers. Concisely, there should be an attempt to investigate why managers adopt unfavourable management behaviours, and why there is a big gap between management and employee expectations. This analysis would provide a balanced approach to this study.

References

Al-Ababneh, M 2013, The Influence Of Managerial Leadership Style On Employee Job Satisfaction In Jordanian Resort Hotels, Web.

America Job Exchange 2013, The Importance of Employee Motivation, Web.

Adeyemi-Bello, T 2001, ‘The impact of leadership style on organizational growth’, Work Study, vol. 50 no. 4, pp. 150-154.

Armstrong, M 2003, A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page, London.

Bartolo, K & Furlonger, B 2000, ‘Leadership and job satisfaction among aviation fire fighters in Australia’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 15 no. 1, pp. 87-93.

Bass, B 1990, Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc., New York.

Bauer, T & Law, R 2008, ‘Motivation and satisfaction of mega-business event attendees: The case of ITU Telecom World 2006 in Hong Kong’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 20 no. 2, pp. 228 – 234.

Bruce, K & Nylan, C 2011, ‘Elton Mayo and the Deification of Human Relations’, Organization Studies, vol. 32 no.3, pp. 383-405.

Cassidy, D 2003, ‘Maximizing shareholder value: the risks to employees, customers and the community’, Corporate Governance, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 32 – 37.

Chen, P & Choi, Y 2008, ‘Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 20 no. 6, pp. 595 – 615.

Chen, P & Silverthorne, C 2005, ‘Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee readiness’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 26 no. 4, pp. 280-288.

Davidson, M & McPhail, R 2011, ‘Hospitality HRM: past, present and the future’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 23 no. 4, pp. 498 – 516.

Deery, M 2008, ‘Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 20 no. 7, pp. 792 – 806.

Denning, S 2013, ‘Why stock-based compensation poisons leadership’, Strategy & Leadership, vol. 41 no. 1, pp. 15 – 17.

Dye, K & Mills, T 2005, ‘Maslow: man interrupted: reading management theory in context’, Management Decision, vol. 43 no. 10, pp. 1375 – 1395.

Erkutlu, H & Chafra, J 2006, ‘Relationship between leadership power bases and job stress of subordinates: example from boutique hotels’, Management Research News, vol. 29 no. 5, pp. 285-297.

Gill, A 2008, ‘The role of trust in employee-manager relationship’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 20 no. 1, pp. 98 – 103.

Goff, T 2001, Workplace Emotions and Attitudes, Web.

Griffin, R 2002, Management, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Hancer, M & George R 2003, ‘Job satisfaction of restaurant employees: an empirical investigation using the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, vol. 27 no. 1, pp. 85-100.

Hall, J 1972, ‘A Comparison of Halpin and Croft’s Organizational Climates and Likert and Likert’s Organizational Systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17 no. 4, 586–590.

Hersey, P & Blanchard, K 2001, Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.

Holton, J 2001, ‘Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team’, Team Performance Management, vol. 7 no. 4, pp. 36 – 47.

Industry Canada 2013, Case Study: Vancity, Web.

Insightlink Communications 2013, The State Of Employee Satisfaction, Web.

Jar-Allah, S 2000, ‘The role of leaders in reducing resistance in industrial organisations’, Applied Science University Journal, vol. 12 no. 1, pp. 57-77.

Kang, D & Stewart, J 2007, ‘Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and HRD: Development of units of theory and laws of interaction’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 28 no. 6, pp. 531 – 551.

Kavanaugh, R & Ninemeier J 2001, Supervision in the Hospitality Industry, The Educational Institute of the American Hotel & Lodging Association, Michigan.

Kim, T & Jung-Eun, J 2012, ‘Emotional intelligence and emotional labor acting strategies among frontline hotel employees’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 24 no. 7, pp. 1029 – 1046.

Kotzé, K & Roodt, G 2005, ‘Factors That Affect the Retention of Managerial And Specialist Staff: An Exploratory Study of an Employee Commitment Model’, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 48-55.

Lam, T & Baum, T 2001, ‘Study of managerial job satisfaction in Hong Kong’s Chinese restaurants’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 35-42.

Liu, Z & Huang, S 2012, ‘Managerial ties in economy hotel chains in China: Comparison of different ownership types during entrepreneurial processes’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 24 no. 3, pp. 477 – 495.

Locke, E 1976, The nature and cause of job satisfaction (Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology), Rand McNally, Chicago.

Lub, X & Nije, M 2012, ‘Different or alike?: Exploring the psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality workers’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 24 no. 4, pp. 553 – 573.

Manetje, O 2009, Organisational Commitment, Web.

McGregor, D 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGrawHill, New York.

McSweeney, B 2008, ‘Maximizing shareholder-value: A panacea for economic growth or a recipe for economic and social disintegration?’, Critical perspectives on international business, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 55 – 74.

Morgan, S 2006, ‘Transfer of Taylorist ideas to China, 1910-1930s’, Journal of Management History, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 408 – 424.

Muldoon, J 2012, ‘The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies on management scholarship, 1930-1958’, Journal of Management History, vol. 18 no. 1, pp. 105 – 119.

Northouse, P 2004, Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Inc., Los Angeles.

Oshagbemi, T 1999, ‘Academics and their managers: a comparative study in job satisfaction’, Personnel Review, vol. 28 no. 1, pp. 108-123.

Oshagbemi, T 2003, ‘Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UK universities’, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 30 no. 12, pp. 1210-1232.

Oshagbemi, T & Gill, R 2004, ‘Differences in leadership styles and behaviour across hierarchical levels in UK organisations’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 25 no. 1, pp. 93-106.

Purcell, J & Kinnie, N 2003, Understanding the People and Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box, CIPD, London.

Pyöriä, P 2005, ‘Information technology, human relations and knowledge work teams’, Team Performance Management, vol. 11 no. 3, pp. 104 – 112.

Rad, A & Yarmohammadian, M 2006, ‘A study of relationship between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction’, Leadership in Health Service, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 11-28.

Reisenwitz, T & Lyer, R 2007, ‘A comparison of younger and older baby boomers: investigating the viability of cohort segmentation’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 24 no. 4, pp. 202 – 213.

Rivera, M & DiPietro, R 2008, ‘Multi-unit managers: training needs and competencies for casual dining restaurants,’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 20 no. 6, pp. 616 – 630.

Russ, T 2011, ‘Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers’ propensity for participative decision making’, Management Decision, vol. 49 no. 5, pp. 823 – 836.

Russ, T 2013, ‘The relationship between Theory X/Y: assumptions and communication apprehension’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 34 no. 3, pp. 238 – 249.

Sahin, F 2012, ‘The mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the relationship between theory X and Y management styles and affective commitment: A multilevel analysis’, Journal of Management and Organization, vol. 18 no. 2, pp. 159-174.

Shaw, R 2001, ‘Why use interpretative phenomenological analysis in Health Psychology?’, Health Psychology Update, vol. 10 no. 1, pp. 48-52.

Shouldland 2012, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Web.

Simha, A 2010, ‘The value of original source readings in management education: The case of Frederick Winslow Taylor’, Journal of Management History, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 233 – 252.

Smith, J & Osborn 2003, Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods, Sage, London.

Taneja, S & Pryor, M 2011, ‘Frederick W. Taylor’s Scientific Management Principles: Relevance and Validity’, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, vol. 16 no. 3, pp. 60-78.

Veldsman, T 2003, Personal Communication. Internal research report. CS Holdings, New York.

Wagner-Tsukamoto, S 2008, ‘Scientific Management revisited: Did Taylorism fail because of a too positive image of human nature?’, Journal of Management History, vol. 14 no. 4, pp. 348 – 372.

Weisbord, M 2011, ‘Taylor, McGregor and me’, Journal of Management History, vol. 17 no. 2, pp. 165 – 177.

Wharton University 2012, Declining Employee Loyalty: A Casualty of the New Workplace, Web.

Yang, J 2012, ‘Identifying the attributes of blue ocean strategies in hospitality’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 24 no. 5, pp. 701 – 720.

Yousef, D 2000, ‘Organizational commitment: a mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 15 no. 1, pp. 6-24.

Appendix

Appendix One: Questionnaire

Dear Participant,

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. I am on a journey to understand the impact of managerial behaviour on your level of commitment and loyalty to the organisation. It is my belief that through an accurate assessment of your response, I will all be able to build a climate/environment where employers and employees can work in comfort. However, to build such an environment, we need to be able to assess how management is doing and how their behaviours affect our sense of satisfaction and commitment to organisational tasks. I have designed this survey to appeal to the unique dynamics of our organisation, to provide an opportunity for you to rate different facets of managerial behaviour, and possibly provide recommendations on how managerial behaviour could improve to create a favourable working environment for employees. To ease the completion and submission of the questionnaire, this survey is web-based. Furthermore, be assured of your anonymity when participating in this study because your identity will not be required at any stage of the survey. However, for purposes of having an accurate analysis of the data gathered from the survey, the study may highlight your demographic characteristics in the presentation of the final report. It is important to emphasise that none of this information would be associated with the identity of any participant. I therefore encourage you to feel free to complete the survey, honestly and candidly.

Instructions

We understand that it may be difficult to complete the survey in one session. Therefore, if there is a need for multiple sessions, kindly press the “submit” button at the bottom of the screen to save your responses and continue later. Kindly understand that all the responses given in this paper should improve employee workplace experience. Thus, kindly respond to all the questions

Part A

Part B

Do you consider yourself a loyal employee?

• Yes
• No

Why is this so?

If the managers were to improve any of the above managerial facets, which ones would they be?

How would you suggest the company improve the managerial facets?

*End*