Business Management Dynamics

Double Blind Peer Reviewed - Open Access Jounal

Home  |   Contact Us


ISSN: 2047-7031

bmd Business and Management Dynamics bmd
ISSN: 2047-7031  
Volume  6   Issue 10  2017  
Article Abstract
Work Unit Context: The Dyadic, Team Members Relationships and Group Outcomes in a Malaysian Organization
Keywords:  Dyadic, Team Members, Relationships, Group, Outcomes, Organization.
Nur Qurratul' Aini Ismail , Mohd Hilmi Hamzah , Kamarudin Ngah , Jamaludin Mustaffa , Zaherawati Zakaria and Nazni Noordin
This article proposed a group behavior model based on group size, dyad and team-member relationship exchange quality. The objective of this study is to identify the relationship between the size of the working group, leader-member exchange quality, team-member exchange quality that impact on the work group affective commitment as a group outcomes. A total of 215 employees (n=215) in the organization involved in plantation industry throughout Malaysia, was taken as the sample. Data were analyzed using multiple regression to examine the relationship between variables, namely, leader-member exchange quality, team-member exchange quality and affective commitment. While the Pearson correlation analysis was used to test the workgroup size, team-member exchange quality and leader-member exchange quality. The main finding by pearson correlation analysis revealed a negative relationship between workgroup size and leader-member exchange quality and team-member exchange quality. This means that the larger of workgroup size, leader-member exchange and team-member exchange quality was decreasing. The results of the multiple regression analysis showed a significant positive correlation between leader-member exchange and team-member exchange quality of the affective commitment of the workgroup. Based on these findings, several suggestions were put forward as a business and approach to enhance and sustain commitment in workgroups and networking among member groups and their leaders are directly able to improve organizational performance.
22-32   |  View PDF