Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011)

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2011) The Influence of Emotional intelligence, Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment on Organizational Readiness for Change in Higher Learning Institution Abstract Norshidah Nordin Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Section 17, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia This paper intends to examine the relationships of emotional intelligence, organizational commitment, and leadership behaviour in influencing organizational readiness for change. A total of 169 academic staff of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) participated in this study. They were selected based on stage and cluster sampling from the main and branch campuses through at Malaysia. The findings revealed that 44.1% of the variance in readiness for change is explained by emotional intelligence, organizational commitment and transactional leadership behaviour. The practical implications of these findings are discussed in relation to readiness for change context. 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open Selection access and/or under CC peer-review BY-NC-ND under license. responsibility of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Selection Cognitive and/or Counselling, peer-review Research under responsibility & Conference of Services Dr Zafer C-crcs. Bekirogullari. Keywords: Emotional Intelligence; Organizational change; Commitment; Transactional leadership; Transformational Leadership. 1. Main text Introduction The world is changing rapidly; universities and colleges are now facing a number of pressures or forces such as increasing demands for accessibility, equity in the face of decreasing resources as well as demand for more public accountability (Young, 1994). Therefore, in view of the pressures expected from external and internal environments, there is a critical need for higher learning institutions to increase their responsiveness towards individual learner needs, societal goal, aspiration as well as economic development. Thus Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) is no exception. In fact, to remain competitive and significant as an educational provider, it is important for the leaders and the top management of UiTM to create a flexible infrastructure that should lead the organizations to higher levels of performance. However organizational redesign is a stressful experience for many staff (Woodward, et al 1999). As the change involves uncertainty and may badly affect competencies, emotion and abilities, employees generally do not support change, unless they want to (Bernerth, 2004; Armenanksi, Harris & Field,1999). In addition, Devos (2002) noted that failure of change is frequently due to the lack of commitment and motivation of the employees. In this sense, organizational change proponents proposed improving the success of organizational change efforts through creating readiness for change (Armennakis et al, 1999, Lewin, 1951). Organizational readiness for change in this study represents the predisposition to unfreeze established patterns of behavior. Readiness is related to Lewin s (1951) classical state of unfreezing and reflected in the attitudes of organizational members. According to Lewin (1951), to achieve this stage, organizations need to deliberately use emotional stir up in order to uncap the complacency level in the organization. Hence, Lewin (1951) asserts that dismantling past learning as well as putting some larger forces are necessary to break the inherent resistant to change. Therefore, in 1877-0428 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.217

130 Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 this context, understanding employee work attitude behaviour at the workplace is important as this could affect organizational effectiveness (Pierce, Gardner and Dunham, 2002). Parallel, Vakola and Nikolaou (2005) indicated that beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of employees are critical in successful change. They claimed that change will be a stressful experience unless the majority of the staff perceive that the organization develop supportive organizational mechanism to change, such as top management commitment, allocation of resources, rewards, training and participation in the planning and implementation. Nevertheless, although there is an agreement that organizational readiness for change is naturally an appealing construct, little empirical research has focused on this phenomenon (Eby, Adam, Rusell & Gaby, 2000). Hence, there have been assertions that organization work related behaviours such as commitment (Meyer, 2002; Meyer & Allen, 1988), emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) and leadership behaviour (Chrusciel, 2006) are important constructs in understanding organizational readiness for change; However there has not been much empirical work testing the interplay between them. Therefore, this paper intends to examine the relationships of emotional intelligence, organizational commitment and perceived leadership behaviour in influencing organizational readiness for change in higher learning institutions. 1.1 Emotional intelligence, organizational commitment and leadership behavior in a change context Lewin s (1951) change model notes that the first level of change, that is, the unfreezing stage, is where change process is considered painful and generates a number of specific psychological responses that need to be analyzed. Parallel, a study done by O Neil and Lenn (1995) revealed that the types and depths of emotions of employees could be affected by change activities. Subsequently, Burke (1998) found that workers with higher readiness for change scores reported slightly highly emotional exhaustion scores. His study showed that psychological factors which increased the personal risks of rapid organizational change did not reduce readiness for change. Given this juncture, literature noted that developing emotion intelligence in a positive attitude towards change could lead to success factors in the change process (Huy, 1999, Higgs and Rowland, 2002). The concept of emotional intelligence has its root from Thorndike s construct of social intelligence (Thorndike, 1927). Later it was Goleman (1995, 1998) who brought the construct into the limelight. There is evidence in the change management literature identifying the role of emotional intelligence in a change context. For instance, Goleman (1995) perceives that emotional intelligence competencies such as social skills, social awareness, self management and social management, are job skills that can be learned and has become important construct in the change process. Gardner & Stough (2002) asserted that emotionally intelligent employees are thought to be happier and more committed to their organization, achieve greater success (Miller, 1999) perform better in the workplace (Goleman, 1988), take advantage of and use positive decision making and able to instill a sense of enthusiasms, trust and co-operation in other employees through interpersonal relationships (George, 2000). Besides, research also revealed that people with high levels of EI experience more career success (Dulewics and Higgs, 1998), feel less job insecurity (Jordan et al, 2002), lead more effectively (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997) are more adaptable to stressful events (Nikolaou and Tsaousis, 2002) and better coping strategies (Baron et al, 2000) than those with low EI. Hence, as organizations look at potential management tools to assist them in gaining competitive advantage, it is being recommended that one area worth further consideration is emotional intelligence (Chrusciel, 2006, Adeyemo, 2007, Wong and Law, 2007, Rathi and Rastogi, 2009). Another significant construct in the context of organizational change, is the role of leadership. Obviously, in a change process, organizations look to leadership for ways to deal with demands and new challenges of the changing environment. Leadership is a social process where an organizations mission, values and directions are determined (Goodstein and Boeker, 1991) a clear focus on the goal is maintained (Butterworth, Fesko and McGaughey, 1997). This will influence group maintenance and culture (Yukl, 1994). Erkutli (2008) suggests that leadership behavior will have direct effects on employees outcomes. In this sense, transformational leadership behaviors have been shown to produce a variety of positive outcomes in organization settings (Leban & Zulauf, 2004). For example, transformational leadership could help to trigger a transforming effect where leaders are able to generate awareness and acceptance among the employees (Tichy and Devana, 1986); it has been linked to generate higher levels of organizational commitment (Shamir and Arthur 1983) and increase performance and productivity (Howell and Avolio, 1993). Hence, many studies focus on identifying the characteristics and value of transformational and transactional leadership styles (Bass, Avolio, Jung, Berson 2003; Bass and Avolio, 2000; Burns, 1978). According to Bass (1985) transactional leadership develops from the exchange process between leaders and subordinates wherein the leader provides reward exchanges for the subordinates performance. On the other hand, transformational leadership behaviours go beyond transactional leadership and motivate followers to identify with

Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 131 the leaders vision and sacrifice their interest for that of the group or the organization. Bass (1998) also noted that Transformational leadership has certain traits such as charisma, attention to individualized development and the ability and willingness to provide intellectual stimulation, which are critical to leaders whose firms are facing demands for renewal and change. In sum, many, both transformational and transactional leadership behaviours may have effects on employees outcome such as satisfaction, commitment and productivity. It is worth noting that on the other hand, leaders can only be successful with strong support from their committed subordinates. However, Meyer and Allen (1997) asserted that organizational change can be successful if employees are committed to making it work. They claimed that commitment is best when it is based upon a belief in the value of the initiative and employees wanting to see it succeed. The concept of organizational commitment emerged from studies exploring employees- organization linkages. According to Mowday and spencer (1981), committed employees would be beneficial due to the potential for increased performance, reduced turnover and absenteeism. Whereas, Meyer and Allen (1991) provide empirical support that organizational commitment is a multidimensional concept that provides a comprehensive insight into the link between employees and work related behavior. Meyer and Allen (1991) indicated that that are three components conceptualization of organizational commitment; affective, continuance and normative. Meyer & Allen (1991) believe that employees can experience all three forms of commitment to varying degrees. They claimed that given these conceptual differences, the psychological states reflecting the three components of organizational will develop as the function of quite different antecedents and have different implications for work behavior. Literatures indicate that organizational commitment and involvement is one of the important elements that have impact on organizational change. For example, Meyer and Allen (1997) assert that employees high in affective commitment, for example, demonstrate emotional attachment and identification with their involvement in the organization. This would explain why these employees are less likely to engage in withdrawal behavior and are more willing to accept change (Sommers, 1995, Iverson, 1996). Lau & Woodman (1995) argued that a highly committed employee is more willing to accept organizational change if it is perceived to be beneficial. Similarly, Guest (1997) suggests that organizational commitment will result in willingness to accept organizational change. In sum, a greater degree of organizational commitment should lead to successful organizational readiness for a change process. Therefore, having much said about work related attitude and their effect on organizational change, this study suggests that a positive relationship exists among leadership behavior, organizational commitment and emotional intelligence on organizational readiness for change. 2.0 Purpose of the study The objectives of the study are two-fold, namely to determine (a) the relationships of emotional intelligence, leadership behavior and organizational commitment on organizational readiness for change among the academic staff of UiTM, and (b) the contribution of each of the significant predictor variables towards organizational readiness for change. 3.0 Methodology This study was based on a conceptual framework that combines part of adapted model from organizational development and change theory (Lewin, 1947; Burke-Litwin, 1992) and the Three Component Model (TCM) of organizational commitment developed by Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997). Organizational readinesses for change questionnaires were adapted from Carnall (1995) with modification to suit the objectives of the study. Carnall (1995) developed the questionnaires for organizational diagnosis in relations to effectiveness of organizations during the change period. Hence, the academicians perceptions and responses toward organizational readiness for change were based on selected organizational factors as such as mission, vision and goals, structure, people relationship, motivation, support systems, attitude toward change and capability and resources. To make change effective and successful, the organization needs to have a high degree of fit or internal alignment among these factors. The questionnaires consist of forty items with a response format anchor on a seven point scale of strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). An example of the scale item is the organization structure, system and procedures of work here are effective during the implementations of change. The perceived leadership behaviour is reflected in the transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985). An instrument called the multifactor leadership style questionnaire (MLQ-5x form) was developed from Bass and Avolio (1995) and used in the study. Organizational commitment in this study was measured by affective commitment (i.e., based on emotional attachment to organization, identification with and involvement in the organization); continuance commitment (based on the cost that employees associate with leaving the organization) and normative commitment (feeling of obligation to remain with the organization) as operationalised by Meyer and Allen, (1991). This study employed the stage cluster sampling design. The samples were

132 Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 drawn from the academic staff of UiTM from main and branch campuses of the Malaysian Peninsula. Hence using G*8 power analysis program, a sample size of 169 was determined. Multiple regression analysis was used as a tool to identify the contribution of each of the significant independents variables towards the variance of organizational readiness for change. 4.0 Findings 1) Analysis on the relationship of emotional intelligence, perceived leadership behavior and organizational commitment on organizational readiness for change among the academic staff of UiTM Table 1: Correlation matrix analysis of organizational readiness for change, emotional intelligence, leadership behaviour and organizational commitment (n= 168) Variables M Std dev 1 2 3 4 5 Change 5.01.77 1.00 EI 5.08.90.478** 1.00 Transformational 2.19.79.433**.412 1.00 transactional 2.28.55.496**.315.699 1.00 Commitment 4.58.67.526**.353.401.419 1.00 ** Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels Table 1 presents the result obtained from a bi-variate analysis. The findings indicate that work related behaviors (namely emotional intelligence, organizational commitment and transactional and transformational leadership behavior) were positive and moderately associated with organizational readiness for change, with their respective r and p values (r = 0.478, p =0.000; r = 0.526, p = 0.000; r = 0.496, p = 0.000; r = 0.433, p = 0.00). 2) Analysis on ables towards the variance of the criterion variables. Table 2: Multiple Regression analysis on organizational readiness for change Variables Un-std Std t P Coefficient coefficient (constant) 1.117 3.039 0.003 Org commit.354.300 4.427 0.000 EI.276.319 4.820 0.000 Transactional.332.227 2.762 0.006 Transformational.048.048.560.576 F Statistic = 33.925, sig. < 0.05 Adjusted R-squared =.441, R2 =.454 Based on the ENTER method, as shown in table 2, the findings reveal that, out of four variables that were regressed, only three predictor variables were found to be significant. The three predictor variables were Emotional Intelligence, Transactional leadership and Organizational Commitment with their respective t and p values (t = 4.820, p = 0.000, t = 2.762, p = 0.006, t = 4.427, p = 0.000). However, Transformational leadership with t =.560, p = 5.76 was excluded because they did not contribute in significance to the variance of organizational readiness for change. Besides, Table 2 also indicates the coefficient of determination, that is, R squared. It is the value which indicates the percentage of total variation of the dependent variable explained by the independent variables. Therefore as shown in Table 2, the total amount of variance of the criterion variable that was predictable from the two predictors was 45.4%, and the adjusted R square change of 44.1%. Since the adjusted R square could give a better estimation of the true population value, the contribution of the predictor variables towards the variance in the criterion variable in this study was reported based on the adjusted R-square value. Therefore, the overall regression model was successful in explaining approximately 44.1% of the adjusted variance in organizational readiness for

Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 133 change. In sum, organizational commitment, emotional intelligence and transactional leadership behaviour were found to be positively linked organizational readiness for change at a significant level of 0.05. This indicated that organization readiness for change could occur in situations where a) employees were able to use their emotion intelligently in order to help create readiness for change; (b) there was a relationship between the employees and the organization commitment and; (c) transactional leadership style provided contingent rewards when employees provided performance. A further analysis was carried out on the three components of commitment namely affective, normative and continuance to examine which of these components could be identified as the significant predictors of organizational readiness for change. Table 3: Multiple regression analysis of organizational readiness for change with the three components of organizational commitment Variables Un-std Std t P Coefficient coefficient (constant) 2.283 6.337 0.000 Affective.294.364 4.667 0.000 Continuance.112.120 1.640 0.103 Normative.162.167 2.077 0.039 F- Statistic = 21.358, sig. < 0.05, Adjusted R-squared =.269, R2 =.282 Based on the ENTER method, as shown in table 3, the finding reveals that only two predictor variables were found to be significant. The two predictor variables were affective commitment where the t value was 4.667, p = 0.000 and normative commitment where the t value was 1.640, p= 0.039. However, continuance commitment with t =.560, p = 5.76 was excluded because it did not contribute in significance to the variance of organizational readiness for change. In addition, based on the adjusted r squared value, the overall regression model was successful in explaining approximately 26.9% of the adjusted variance in organizational readiness for change. 5.0 Discussions and conclusion The current study intends to examine the relationship of emotional intelligence, organizational commitment, and Transformational and Transactional leadership behavior on organizational readiness for change. The findings confirmed the relationships among those variables and thus, it is evident that there is a critical need to understand work- attitude behavior in order to make the change effort effective. The overall regression model was successful in explaining approximately 44.1% of the adjusted variance in organizational readiness for change. The findings statistically showed that emotional intelligence had contributed the strongest unique contribution to explain organizational readiness for change. The result of this study was consistent with the research done by Vokala, Tsaousis & Nikolaou (2004), Huy (1999) that showed the contribution of emotional intelligence to the attitude to commitment for successful organizational change intervention (Iverson, 1996; Lau and Woodman, 1995). However, the findings show that the staff members of the organization have been exhibiting rather moderate commitment. The impact of organizational change is not a uniform experience for all employees. For example, a shift in organizational structure change is exhilarating for some but it can also cause confusion, low morale and decreased productivity to others. Thus, to some extent, the relationship between employer and employee could be jeopardized. At this point, the staff members perhaps do not understand the rationale for the changes or the decision being made by the management. Therefore, a continued appreciation of employee commitment would be beneficial to the organization in creating readiness for change. Nonetheless, based on the multiple regression analysis, the results showed that the three components of organizational commitment accounted for 26.9% of the variance of organizational readiness for change. However, affective commitment showed the strongest contribution to explain organizational readiness for change. This could indicate that an components. Therefore, this study acknowledges and recognizes the multi-dimensional nature of commitment as suggested by Meyer and Allen (1991). Thus, this result confirmed the evidence from the literature showing that affective organizational commitment was one of the most important determinants of successful organizational change (Darwish, 2000, Iverson and Buttigeg, 1998, Iverson, 1996). According to Iverson (1996), the more the employees feel

134 Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 attached to their organization, the higher their commitment to organization and the greater their willingness to accept organizational change. More importantly, in dealing with readiness for change, it is critical to help employees to clearly identify their new roles and responsibilities. Thus, by doing so, it could build-up their level of confidence, self esteem and commitment to the organization. In the context of leadership behaviour, the theory suggested that transformational leadership is required when change is concerned. However, the findings in this study suggested otherwise. Surprisingly, the multiple regression results showed that transformational leadership style was not a statistically significant predictor of organizational readiness for change. On the other hand, the result indicated that transactional leadership behaviour was a potent predictor of readiness for change. Even though the beta value of the transactional leadership was comparatively smaller than the other two variables, it still has significant bearing on organizational readiness for change. The results of this study implied that transactional leadership has the potential to influence organizational members beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization s capacity to successfully make those changes. In this sense, the academic staff perceived that their leaders namely Deans, Directors and Coordinators were more transactional rather than transformational in leading the change. For, Burke (2002), transactional leaders play the role of managers and thus constantly focus on improvement and quality rather than on an overhaul of the total system. Besides, transactional contingent reward leadership build the foundation for the relationship between leaders and followers in terms of specifying expectations, clarifying responsibilities, negotiating contracts and providing recognition and rewards for achieving expected performance (Bass, 1985). The finding was consistent with other studies such as Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson (2003); Grover and Walker (2003) and Eisenbach, Watson & Pillai (1999). The present study has several practical implications for managers, leaders and organizations facing organizational change. Perhaps, in creating organizational readiness for change, the management could establish policies and practices that could minimize the potential negative impact of planned change efforts. Firstly, a managerial implication is that if the higher learning institutions want to make their change effort successful, attention must be given to developing programs for both the employees emotional intelligence competency and organizational commitment. By and large, during the unfreeze stage, if the employees feel secured, emotionally stable, satisfied and affectively connected to the organization, change process will be enhanced. The literature showed that employees who are highly committed to the organization demonstrate a great willingness to share and make the sacrifices required for the organization to thrive (Greenberg & Baron, 2003). This is particularly important in today s environment, where higher learning institutions are getting more complex, diverse, hostile and uncertain. In fact, this effort could push for greater organizational effectiveness to meet higher demands, competitiveness and financial restriction. Besides, change leaders or managers need to employ various strategies that would move employees into organizational commitment such as developing trust and fairness to employees, better communication, the provision of clear and practical mission and goals, as well as the provision of support to help employees to adjust to the change process. Secondly, this study shows that emotional intelligence could predict organizational readiness for change. Indeed, in the world of work today, workers are required to be competent both in technical and soft skills. More importantly, developing employees emotional intelligence competency such as interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, adaptability and stress management techniques is paramount in order increase employees ability to cope with change. Besides, academicians who are involved in social interaction need emotional intelligence competency to work effectively in a social setting. Therefore, developing those competencies might help the academic staff to improve work performance, such as, maintaining high academic standards in the classroom, teaching quality, research dedication and producing not only the brightest students but also those sought and employable for the industry. Thirdly, this study has implications for the strategic managerial roles and responsibilities as change agent in the organization. Leadership in the Malaysian context is often seen to be transactional and maintaining power distance. Despite being paternalistic in nature, transactional leadership behaviour seems to match with the satisfaction of the employees. More importantly, during the change period, this type of leaders should be able to lead employees through cultural, structural and operational changes that are designed to achieve a number of key organizational goals. In order to succeed, they need to establish the required level of clarity, communicating the change message, ensuring participation and involvement in the change process. Besides, to enhance employees motivation, they also need to consider incorporating the concepts of contingent rewards and management by exceptions (active) in the management development programs in order to improve the quality and impact of the change programs.

Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 135 Lastly, although the results of this study extend the understanding of emotional intelligence, organizational commitment and perceived leadership behaviour in influencing organizational readiness for change, it does have some limitations which warrants a review. For example, this study has focused on only one organization that is UiTM. It is important to take into consideration that UiTM, in its own way, is unique from other learning institutions in terms of its vision, mission, structure, communication systems, and management style. Besides, the study has only focused on academic staff. Thus, a larger sample of employees would have allowed for more accurate results and increase confidence and generalizability. Another limitation in this present study is that there is a lack of any available control group. Further investigations need to be carried out to include control variables such as age, gender and duration of work experiences. Lastly, this study utilized a cross sectional design, specifically using descriptivecorrelational research design where the data were collected at a single point of time. Therefore, the results of the study would not be able to confirm the directions of causality implied in the research model. Hence, further studies should be carried out using a longitudinal research design to test the model as a whole. References Adeyemo. D. A (2007) Emotional intelligence and the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employee in public Parastatals in Oyo state, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Scineces 4 (2): 324-330 Armenakis, A.A., & Harris S.G., & Field, H. (1999). Paradigms in Organizational Change: Change agent and change target perspectives. In Golembiewski (eds.) handbook of Organizational behavior, New York: Marcel Dekker, Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for Organizational change. Human Relations, 46:681-704. Baron, R. & Parker, J.D.A. (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, Assessment and Application at Home, school, and in the Workplace, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Bass, B. M. (1998).Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military and Educational Impact, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation, New York: Free Press, Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving Organizational effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. California: Sage. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, California: Mind Garden, Redwood City. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, & D., Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 207-218. Bernerth, J., (2004). Expanding our understanding of the Change message. Human Resource Development Review, 3: 36-52. Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of Organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18: 523-545 Burke, W.W. (2002). Organizational Change: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Butterworth, J., Fesko, M., & McGaughey, M. (1997). Conversion to integrated Employment: Case Studies of Organizational Change. Boston, MA: Institute of Community Inclusion, Center for Promoting Employment.

136 Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 Carnall, C.A. (1995). Managing Change in Organizations. (2 nd ed.) London: Prentice Hall. Chrusciel, D. (2006) Considerations of emotional intelligence in dealing with change decision management. Management Decision, 44: 644-657. Copper, R., & Sawaf, A. (1997) Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Business. London: Orion Business. Darwish, Y. (2000). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of attitudes toward organizational change in a non- Western setting, Personnel Review, 29: 6-25 Devos, V.L.G. (2002). A Framework for assessing commitment to change. Process and context variable of Organizational Change. Management School Working Paper series. Retrieved January 2006 from http://ideas.repec.org/p/vlg/vlwps/2002-11.htm. Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 76: 242-245. Eby, L.T., Adam, D.M., Russell, J.E.A. & Gaby, S.H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employee s reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations. 53: 419-442 Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. & Pillai R., (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of Organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management,12 : 80-89. Erkutlu, H. (2008) The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness: the Turkish case. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27, No 7, pp708-726 Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2003). Assessing the relationship between workplace emotional intelligence, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, Australian Journal of Pschology : Supplement (2003) George, J.M.(200)) Emotions and lleadership:the role of emotional intelligence, Human Relations, vol 53, No 8, pp1027-55 Goleman, D (1995). Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, November- December. Goodstein, J. & Boeker, W. (1991). Turbulence at the top: A new perspective on governance structure changes and strategic change, Academy of management Journal, 34: 304-330. Goodstein, J. & Boeker, W. (1991). Turbulence at the top: A new perspective on governance structure changes and strategic change, Academy of management Journal, 34: 304-330. Greenberg, J. & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in Organizations. (8 th ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall Grover, R.A., & Walker, H.F. (2003). Changing from production to quality: Application of Situation Leadership Transtheoretical Change models. American Society for Quality.10 (3) July. Guest, D. (1987). Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 503-521

Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 137 Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21 st century? Leadership & organization Development Journal. 24: 273-284 Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: key predictor of consolidated business unit performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891-902. Huy, Q. N. (1999) Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence and Radical Change. Academy of Management Review, 24:325-345 Iverson, R.D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change. The role of organizational commitment, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7: 147-157 Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C.E.J. (2002). The case for emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity, Academy of Management Review, 27: 361-372 Lau, C., & Woodman, R.C. (1995). Understanding organizational Change: A schematic perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 38: 537-554. Leban, W. & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking Emotional Intelligence abilities and Transformational Leadership Styles. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. 25: 554-64. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics, Human Relations, 1: 5-41 Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Sciences- selected Theoretical Paper, New York: Harper & Row. Meyer, J. P. & Allen N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, Research and Application, London: Sage. Meyer, J. P. (2002). Employee Commitment is a key to success of Organizational change. Society for Industrial and Organizational psychology Inc. Retrieved March 2006 from: http://www.siop.org/media/news/employee.htm. Meyer, J. P., & Allen N.J. (1991). A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 61-89 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1988). Links between work experience and organizational commitment during the years of employment: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61: 195-209 Meyer, J. P., Irving, G. P., & Allen, N.J. (1998). Examination of the combine effects of work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment, Journal of Organizational Behavior,19 :29-52. Mowday, R.T., & Spencer, D. (1981). The influence of task and personality characteristics of employee turnover and absenteeism, Academy of Management Journal, 24: 634-642. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L.W. & Steers R. M. (1982). Employee-Organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Nikolaou, I. & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace, exploring its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10; 23-34 O Neil, H.M. & Lenn, D.J. (1995) Voices of survivors: words that downsizing CEOs should hear, Academy of Management Executive, Vol9,, pp23-34 Pierce, J.L., & Gardner, D.G., Dunham R.B. (2002). Management and Organizational Behavior: An Integrated Perspective. Boston: South-Western Thomson Learning.

138 Norshidah Nordin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 129 138 Rathi N. & Rastogi, R. (2009) Assessing the relationship between emotion al intelligence, occupational self-efficacy and organizational commitment. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol 35, special issue, pp23-102 Shamir, B., House, R.J., Arthur, M.B. (1993), "The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory", Organization Science, 4:1-17. Somers, M.J. (1995) Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: an examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16:49-58 Thorndike, E. L. (1927) intelligence and it uses. Harper s Magazine, 140, 227-235 Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M.A.(1986). The Transformational Leader. New York: Addison Wiley. Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards Organizational change. What is the role of employees stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27: 160-174. Vakola, M., Tsaousis I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitude toward organizational Change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19:88-110. Wong, C.S., Wong, P.M., and Law K.S. (2007) Evidence of the practical utility of Wong s emotional intelligence scale in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Asia Pacific J. Manage, Vol 24, pp 43-60 Woodward C, Shannon H, Cunningham C, McIntosh J, Lendrum B, Rosenbloom D, and Brown J. (1999). The impact of re-engineering and other cost reduction strategies on the staff of a large teaching hospital: a longitudinal study. Journal of Medical Care, 37:547-55. Young G. L (1994) Needs Assessment in program planning. College Quarterly, 2; 80-89. Yukl, G.A. (1994) Leadership in Organization, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ