| Literature DB >> 27293380 |
Samirah A Asiri1, Wesley W Rohrer2, Khaled Al-Surimi3, Omar O Da'ar4, Anwar Ahmed5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current challenges facing healthcare systems, in relation to the shortage of health professionals, necessitates mangers and leaders to learn from different leadership styles and staff empowerment strategies, so as to create a work environment that encourages nursing staff commitment to patients and their organization. This study intends to measure the effects of nurses' overall perception of the leadership style of their managers, and psychological empowerment on their organizational commitment in acute care units, in National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia.Entities:
Keywords: Organizational commitment; Psychological empowerment; Transactional leadership; Transformational leadership
Year: 2016 PMID: 27293380 PMCID: PMC4901399 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-016-0161-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nurs ISSN: 1472-6955
Demographic characteristics of study respondents
| Variable | N | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 26 | 7.9 |
| Female | 305 | 92.1 | |
| Position | Staff nurse | 302 | 92 |
| Nurse manager | 9 | 2.7 | |
| Others | 19 | 5.8 | |
| Education | Diploma/Associate degree | 79 | 25.4 |
| Baccalaureate degree | 225 | 72.3 | |
| Master degree | 7 | 2.3 | |
| Other Degree | Yes | 120 | 43.6 |
| No | 155 | 56.4 | |
| Nationality | African | 14 | 4.4 |
| Arab | 31 | 9.7 | |
| Asian | 45 | 14.2 | |
| Filipinos | 217 | 68.2 | |
| North American | 11 | 3.5 | |
Employees’ empowerment scale and subscales (scores lowest = 0 to highest = 6)
| Variables | Mean score | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score of empowerment | 4.70 | .90 |
| Subscales scores of empowerment | ||
| - Meaning | 5.16 | .95 |
| - Confidence | 4.92 | .97 |
| - Autonomy | 4.48 | 1.13 |
| - Impact | 4.21 | 1.13 |
Organizational commitment scale and subscale (scores lowest = 1 to highest = 7)
| Variables | Mean score | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score commitment | 4.32 | 1.43 |
| Subscales scores of commitment | ||
| - Normative Commitment | 4.54 | 1.06 |
| - Continuance Commitment | 4.46 | 1.11 |
| - Affective Commitment | 4.02 | 3.46 |
Multiple comparisons of organizational commitment by nationality
| Mean Difference | SE | Sig. | 95 % Confidence Interval | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
| North America vs. | African | −0.73 | 0.47 | 0.532 | −2.03 | .57 |
| Arab | −1.13 | 0.42 | 0.053 | −2.28 | .01 | |
| Asian | −1.11 | 0.40 | 0.046a | −2.20 | −.01 | |
| Philippines | −1.26 | 0.37 | 0.007a | −2.27 | −.24 | |
aThe mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
Leadership style scale and subscale scores (lowest = 0 to highest = 4)
| Leadership style scale | Mean score | SD |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| - Inspirational Motivation (IM) | 2.65 | 0.86 |
| - Idealized Influence Attributed (IAII) | 2.59 | 0.81 |
| - Idealized Influence Behavior (IBII) | 2.51 | 0.83 |
| - Intellectual Stimulation (IS) | 2.50 | 0.83 |
| - Individualized Consideration (IC) | 2.47 | 0.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| - Contingent Rewards CR | 2.50 | 0.87 |
| - Management-by-Exception-Active MBEA | 2.47 | 0.83 |
| - Management-by-Exception-Passive, MBEP | 1.36 | 1.21 |
| Laissez-faire |
|
|
Fig. 1Differences in organizational commitment by nationality: 95 % CI for mean
Correlation of employees’ empowerment and leadership styles subscales with organizational commitment scale
| Independent variables (subscales) | Dependent variable (Commitment) | |
|---|---|---|
| Subscales of empowerment | ||
| Meaning | Pearson correlation | −.130a |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .019 | |
| N | 323 | |
| Confidence | Pearson correlation | −.015 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .782 | |
| N | 323 | |
| Autonomy | Pearson correlation | −.069 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .213 | |
| N | 323 | |
| Impact | Pearson correlation | −.075 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .180 | |
| N | 320 | |
| Subscales of leadership styles | ||
| TFL | Pearson correlation | −.113a |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .045 | |
| N | 316 | |
| TAL | Pearson correlation | .124a |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .028 | |
| N | 314 | |
| LFT | Pearson correlation | .093 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .103 | |
| N | 306 |
acorrelation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
Stepwise linear regression analysis: predictors of nurses’ commitment
| Main variable | Variables | B | SE | t |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.90 | 0.23 | 12.82 | 0.001 | |
| Leadership styles | TFL | 0.14 | 0.08 | 1.8 | 0.074 |
| TAL | 0.22 | 0.10 | 2.22 | 0.027* | |
| LFL | 0.14 | 0.05 | 2.54 | 0.012* | |
| Nationality | African | −0.38 | 0.21 | −1.77 | 0.078 |
| Arab | −0.31 | 0.14 | −2.22 | 0.027* | |
| American | −0.89 | 0.25 | −3.63 | 0.001* | |
| Empowerment | Autonomy | 0.09 | 0.04 | 2.42 | 0.016* |
N = 242, F (7, 234) = 9.77, P-value =0.001, R Squared = 0.226, Adj.R Squared = 0.203, RMSE = 0.624 * Statistically significant at P value less than 0.05