The Decision Behaviour Evaluation of Interrelationships among Personality, Transformational Leadership, Leadership Self-Efficacy, and Commitment for E-Commerce Administrative Managers

1.1 The Research Model

As shown in Figure 1, the research model describes the interrelationships among personality, transformational leadership, leadership self-efficacy, and commitment for E-Commerce administrative managers. In this study, mediation analysis is used to test the mediating effects among independent variables, dependent variables, and mediating variables in the following categories: (1) transformational leadership is employed as a mediator between personality and leadership self-efficacy. (2) Leadership self-efficacy is applied as a mediator between personality and commitment. (3) Leadership self-efficacy is applied as a mediator between transformational leadership and commitment. Based on the research model, four hypotheses are described as follows:

Figure 1

Research Model.

Some limitations of the proposed model are as follows: First, the four main variables of the model are not applicable to all administrative managers and industries. Because the variable of the proposed model is designed for E-Commerce administrative managers, not applicable to managers in other industries. Second, due to the cultural difference, the four variables may lead to cognitive differences in beliefs, behaviours, languages, practices, and expressions in different countries. Third, Western and Eastern ideas of leadership were the balance between individualism and collectivism. Leaders in the East often placed a much heavier emphasis on the collective, articulating high levels of commitment to their leader and the organization. Moreover, limited by research groups and numbers, the study model couldn’t be applicable to all similar leadership research studies. Thus, the above limitations may restrict future research direction and findings.

1.2 The Originality of this Research

The research provides new evidence on the positive relationships among personality, transformational leadership, leadership self-efficacy, and organizational commitment for the E-Commerce administrative managers. This study verifies that personality and the transformational leadership of E-Commerce administrative managers play essential roles in enhancing leadership self-efficacy. This study also examines that leadership self-efficacy has a direct effect on organizational commitment. Those research results will contribute to evaluate the performance model of E-Commerce administrative managers by applying their personalities and transformational leadership to enhance leadership self-efficacy and increase the level of organizational commitment. This research could be a better reference for E-commerce corporations to construct the evaluation model of administrative managers’ performance and achieve organizational accomplishment by enhancing managerial leadership.

2.1 Personality

Each person has a different personality that is totally unique and cannot be duplicated by another person (Bakker et al., 2021). Ones et al. (2021, p. 390) defined personality as “a spectrum of individual attributes that consistently distinguish people from one another in terms of their basic tendencies to think, feel, and act in certain ways.” James and Mazerolle (2002, p. 1) Indicated personality as “dynamic mental structures and coordinated mental processes that determine individuals’ emotional and behavioural adjustments to their environment.” The vocabulary of personality was applied in the dictionaries as a natural language that “provides an extensive, yet finite, set of attributes that the people speaking that language have found important and useful in their daily interactions” (Goldberg, 1981, p. 3). Personality is considered as a disposition motive that predisposes individuals to behave in a particular way and accomplish specific goals (Anglim et al., 2020). An individual personality is cultivated from the cradle and shaped mostly by individual past experiences (Neneh, 2019). Personality is most affected by human instinct that indicates a personal psychological condition, such as individual personality, motive, competence, attitude, evaluation of a social phenomenon, and recognition of the universe and life. Personality refers to the reflection of individual characters when a person adapts to the changes in the surrounding environment (Smiderle et al., 2020). Pierce and Gardner (2002) indicated two determinants of personality that have been termed “nature” and “nurture.” Nature represents that personality is inherited at birth and shaped mainly by heredity. However, there are many arguments that suspect that personality is stable for a long period of time. Epstein (1979) proposed a strong demonstration that the stability of personality increases when behavioural measurements are averaged over continuing and racing events. Personality is concluded as “reasonably consistent over time” by Buss (1991). Ryan and Kristof-Brown (2003) proposed that personality is fairly stable in the adult phase and considered personality is partly influenced by genes. On the other hand, many researchers verified that an individual personality is partly influenced by one’s surrounding environment (Costantini et al., 2019). However, a large number of personality traits aren’t needed to understand the real role of personality in the domain of organizational behaviour.

2.2 Transformational Leadership

The terminology of transformational leadership was first proposed by Downton as the assumption that a person inspires followers to achieve the desired goal with enthusiasm and innovation (Downton, 1973). Burns described transformational leadership as “occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1982, p. 20). Bass and Riggio’s defined transformational leadership as “inspires followers to commit to a shared vision and goals for an organization or unit, challenges them to be innovative problem solvers, and develops followers’ leadership capacity via coaching, mentoring, and provision of both challenge and support” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 4). The objective of transformational leadership is to motivate the morality of followers and to enhance the maximum happiness of organizations by stimulating the followers’ vision and facilitating the process of change (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders are like “architects” who recognize the requirement for change, create new ideas, and construct the expected visions (Paulsen et al., 2013). Tichy and Ulrich indicated that transformational leaders were capable of reconciling disputes in the process of change and encouraging followers to engage in their enthusiasm (Tichy & Ulrich, 1984). Transformational leaders have the capability to guide their followers in the following categories: (1) goal clarification, (2) risk-taking allowance, (3) error tolerance, and (4) creativity encouragement (Bennis, 1989). Transformational leaders devote strong emotions to their followers (Muliati et al., 2022); in contrast, followers are committed to achieve the assigned missions with the full trust of their leaders (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). In the process of refreshing followers’ vision, leaders are allowed to accept change, which is considered a catalyst to increase follower’s competitiveness and sustainability (Marshall, 2000). Transformational leaders have the responsibility to enhance followers’ ethical values by strengthening follower’s moral standards and driving them to achieve higher organizational goals (Bass & Jung, 2003). Transformational leadership strengthens the relationship between leader and follower by consolidating mutual trust and commitment (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Furthermore, leaders and followers are allied to be involved in a common desired goal by which transformational leaders are inclined to facilitate higher achievement than other leaders do (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). The objectives of transformational leaders are associated with the concepts of social responsibility and public welfare instead of leaders’ self-interests (Görgens-Ekermans & Roux, 2021).

According to Bass and Avolio, this research classified transformational leadership into the following four categories: (1) idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and (4) individualized consideration, which are generally abbreviated as the “Four I’s” by most researchers (Messick, 2021).

2.3 Leadership Self-Efficacy

Leadership self-efficacy is described as a leader’s belief by which a leader can display his/her own behaviours effectively for a certain required task (Gist, 1987). A leader with the concept of leadership self-efficacy is anticipated to obtain a higher level of task performance (Rabiul et al., 2022). Leadership self-efficacy is an essential factor in the arena of organizational behaviour (Jonsson et al., 2021). According to Bandura, leadership self-efficacy was proposed as “judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). The definition of leadership self-efficacy was provided by Bandura (1986, p. 391) as “judgments of capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designed types of performance.” Later, Baudura expanded the definition of self-efficacy as “beliefs in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over task demands” (Bandura, 1990, p. 316). Thus, leaders not only possess task-related skills but also have to build the self-assurance belief required to control surrounding events and accomplish expected goals. Gist and Mitchell proposed three traits of leadership self-efficacy: (1) representing the judgments of perceived abilities to perform particular tasks with three assessments of the following categories: assessment of task condition, assessment of experience attribution, and assessment of personal resources; (2) showing the tendencies of being dynamic and adjustable; (3) displaying the identity of mobilization (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Gist suggested that self-efficacy included three components: (1) magnitude, (2) generality, and (3) strength (Gist, 1987). First, the magnitude is described as “the level of task difficulty that a person believes he or she can attain” (Gist, 1987, p. 472). Second, generality indicates the degree to whether judgments are generally applied in all ranges of activities (Bandura, 1997). Strength is defined as “the resoluteness of a person’s conviction that he or she can perform a behaviour in question” (Maddux, 1995, p. 9).

This study broadens the definition of leadership self-efficacy as a leader’s appropriate role and the confidence of self-schematic in a leader’s perceived capabilities to develop psychological motivations, abilities, and behaviours required to achieve effective performance within the domain of leadership (Bandura, 1997). Leadership self-efficacy may bring the leadership structure of the leader to the desired style of leadership, performance standard, and organizational expectation (Lin et al., 2022). Bandura examined that both self-reflection and self-evaluation contribute to a person’s degree of self-efficacy, which is an essential factor in developing one’s leadership self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

2.4 Commitment

Commitment is described as the setting of an individual who is seeking a desired goal (Mihalache & Mihalache, 2022). According to Morrow and Wirth (1989, p. 41), commitment is defined as “the relative strength of identification with and involvement in one’s profession.” Based on the specific goals, leaders would attach themselves to what they want to attain. Meyer and Herscovitch indicated commitments as the following three types: (1) being affective where an individual desires to attain goals; (2) being normative where an individual has the sense of obligation to motivate people; (3) being persistent where an individual has a continuation of consequences to do certain things (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Thus, commitment has relatively long-lasting implications for goal-oriented attainment (Zhang et al., 2022).

2.5 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

Many researchers attempted to recognize the correlation between personality and transformational leadership. Bass (p. 122) stated, “Personality disposition has been correlated with transformational leadership concurrently, retrospectively, and as forecasts of transformational leadership” (Bass, 1998). Judge and Bono examined that three factors of the Big Five personality traits were positively related to transformational leadership, including extraversion, agreeableness, and openness (Judge & Bono, 2000). Although the other two Big Five factors, emotional stability, and conscientiousness, didn’t have a significant correlation with transformational leadership, the overall results of Big Five personality traits could accurately predict the behaviours of transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000). Organizations could benefit from choosing excellent transformational leaders based on the selection of the leader’s appropriate personality traits.

2.5.4 Leadership Self-Efficacy and Commitment

Transformational leaders would enhance their leadership self-efficacy by finding a feasible solution for the problem. As leadership self-efficacy is established, followers will enhance their trust and commitment to the leaders and organizations. By motivating followers to maintain access to the organization and making individual sacrifices, leaders may enhance their followers’ commitment towards a group goal (Yukl, 1998). Transformational leaders identify the group vision and commit to collective interests, which may bring the desired commitment. Therefore, transformational leaders with a high degree of self-efficacy are motivated to have a higher level of commitment within an organization. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 4

A leader with leadership self-efficacy has a positive influence on commitment.

Based on the above hypotheses, the conceptual framework of this research is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Conceptual framework.

3.1 Research Design

Quantitative research design is applied in this study. The statistical software, Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) and Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) Graphics, version 28.0.1, is applied to examine the causalities among all research variables in this study. The Structured Equation Modelling (SEM) method, a multivariate technique, is used to estimate a series of interrelated dependent relationships simultaneously in this research. The Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) induces is employed to examine the overall fitness of the SEM model. In this study, the eight most frequently used GOF statistics induces are applied as the following items: (1) Normal Chi-Square Index (NCI) expressed as χ²/df, the ratio of χ² to degrees-of-freedom. NCI provides information related to chi-square indices and their use in structural equation modelling; (2) Goodness-of-Fit index (GFI) is a measure of fit between the hypothesized model and the observed covariance matrix; (3) Normalized Fit Index (NFI) is a normalized measure, which means it removes the units of measurement, making it easier to compare the fit of different models across various datasets. Higher NFI values indicate a better fit, with values closer to 1 suggesting a more accurate representation of the observed data by the model; (4) Non-Normalized Fit Index (NNFI) is designed to evaluate how well a proposed model fits the observed data. Unlike some fit indices that are normalized and have values between 0 and 1, NNFI does not have this constraint. It provides a measure of fit that doesn’t rely on normal distribution assumptions, making it robust in various modelling situations; (5) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is one of several fit indices that help researchers evaluate how well their proposed model fits the data; (6) Incremental Fit Index (IFI) is an adjustment of the Normed Fit Index (NFI) which is used to evaluate the extent to which the specified model improves the fit compared to a null model. A higher IFI value, typically above 0.90, indicates a better fit between the model and the data, suggesting that the model explains a significant portion of the variance in the observed variables; (7) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) quantifies the discrepancy between the model’s predicted covariance matrix and the actual observed covariance matrix. A lower RMSEA value indicates a better fit, with values close to zero indicating an excellent fit; and (8) Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) is an index of the overall badness-of-fit. It is the square root of the mean of the squared residuals.

Table 2 lists the recommended values of Goodness-of-Fit statistic measures.

3.2 Selection of Participants

The research population is randomly selected from E-Commerce administrative managers who are responsible for E-Commerce affairs in Taiwan. Paulsen et al. stated that transformational leaders are inclined to recognize the requirement for change and create new ideas. E-Commerce administrative managers are more likely to confront more complicated E-Commerce changes in the working environments, especially of the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic isolation (Paulsen et al., 2013). That is why the E-Commerce administrative managers have been chosen in this research. The samples of 408 participants were randomly selected from the following two resources: the member lists from Taiwan Internet and E-Commerce Association and the Chinese Non-Store Retailer Association because these resources are the main groups of E-Commerce affairs in Taiwan. The questionnaires are randomly sent to E-Commerce administrative managers by online transmission. All of the answers responded by participants are sent back to the database of my3q.com automatically.

3.3 Instrumentation

The questionnaire of this research includes the following four main categories: (1) Big Five Personality Traits, (2) Transformational Leadership, (3) Leadership Self-Efficacy, and (4) Commitment. First, the questionnaire on Big Five personality traits is measured by Goldberg’s NEO-PI-R Personality Inventory which is commonly applied as a measurement of personality traits. Each factor of personality trait is measured by 10 items, including (1) extraversion, (2) agreeableness, (3) conscientiousness, (4) emotional stability, and (5) openness (Goldberg, 1990). Second, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) full-range model developed by Bass and Avolio et al. is applied to measure the components of transformational leadership (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). The model of transformational leadership includes four subcomponent leadership styles, including (1) idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and (4) individualized consideration. Third, the questionnaire on leadership self-efficacy is based on the Agentic Leadership Efficacy (ALE) scale, which was designed in accordance with Bandura’s scale development guide (Bandura, 2001). The Agentic Leadership Efficacy (ALE) scale is a construct and model in leadership research. ALE focuses on leader emergence, engagement, and performance. The ALE scale is designed to measure the self-perceived leadership efficacy of individuals. Finally, the questionnaire on commitment is based on the internalization dimension of commitment developed by O’Reilly and Chatman is a concept in organizational psychology. The model of organizational commitment, proposed in 1986, comprises three distinct dimensions that individuals can have towards their organizations: compliance, identification, and internalization. (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). The five-point Likert scales are employed in each item of personality trait, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.4 Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is applied to examine the construct validity in this study. All factors are extracted by using principal components analysis with Varimax rotation, which is used to measure the following two main variables: personality and transformational leadership.

3.5 Reliability

Internal consistency is applied to examine the reliability of measurement instruments, including Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). According to Fornell and Larcker, adequate internal consistency indicates the fulfillment of the following terms: (1) Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients are greater than 0.7; (2) Composite Reliability coefficients are higher than 0.7; and (3) The AVE of all constructs are greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

4.1 Measurement Model Evaluation

To ensure the validities of the items selected, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is conducted on the measures of Big Five personality, transformational leadership, and commitment. Six items are selected for each Big Five construct, four items for each transformational leadership construct, and six items for each commitment construct, because of restrictions on the response time set by the participative managers. Two criteria are used to conduct this selection: the highest factor loading in the earlier research and meaningfulness in this study.

The results of all CFAs of measurement models produced suitability Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) indices such as p-value (>0.05); CMIN/DF (<2); RMR (<0.05), RMSEA (<0.08), GFI (>0.9) (Table 3). The CFAs of the big five personality, transformational leadership, and commitment are shown in Table 3. All constructs in this study satisfied the required level.

In addition, the factor loading, squared multiple correlation (SMC), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) are examined as evidence of reliability and convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In this study, factor loading for all constructs is all larger than 0.7, squared multiple correlation (SMC) is greater than 0.5, composite reliability (CR) is greater than 0.8, and variance extracted (AVE) is greater than 0.5, which presents a good reliability and convergent validity for constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Table 4).

Then, Cronbach’s alpha is calculated to analyse the internal consistency of each construct. The Cronbach’s alpha is greater than 0.7, which exceeds the recommended reliability. The components of all constructs are shown in Table 5. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha indicates the results of internal consistency of the construct and its reliability are excellent.

4.2 Structural Model Evaluation

Test hypotheses are proceeded by estimating the conceptual model, with satisfied confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs; Figure 3). The structural model fit is great with χ²/df = 0.962 < 3.0, p-value = 0.561 > 0.05, RMR = 0.029 < 0.05, RMSEA = 0.00 < 0.08, CFI = 0.955 > 0.9, and AGFI = 0.932 > 0.9, indicating a good predictive validity. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a leader’s personality traits on transformational leadership (H1), the effects of a leader’s personality traits on leadership self-efficacy (H2), and the effect of transformational leadership on leadership self-efficacy (H3). Then, this study investigates the effect of leadership self-efficacy on commitment (H4). H1, H2, H3, and H4 are supported in this study with significant levels (p < 0.05). The results of the hypotheses are shown in Table 6. The study shows that H1 is significant (p = 0. 028 < 0.05). This means that personality traits significantly have a direct effect on transformational leadership behaviours. This is supported by previous research studies (Avolio et al., 1995; Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Judge & Bono, 2000; Ones et al., 2021). H2 is also significant (p = *** < 0.001). This indicates that personality traits significantly have a direct effect on leadership self-efficiency. This is supported by previous findings (Catino, 1992; Friedman & Rosenman, 1974; Hogan et al., 1994; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Wellins et al., 1991). Then, H3 is significant (p = 0.008 < 0.05). This indicates that transformational leadership significantly has a direct effect on leadership self-efficacy. This is confirmed by past findings (Bandura, 1997; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Therefore, H1, H2, and H3 are supported in this study. In addition, this research examines that personality traits have a direct effect on leadership self-efficacy and an indirect effect on leadership self-efficacy through transformational leadership. Moreover, H4 is significant (p = *** < 0.001). This means that leadership self-efficacy has a direct effect on commitment. This finding is supported by previous findings (Yukl, 1998).

Figure 3

Results of Conceptual Model. Notes: Model fit statistics: χ ² = 58.67, df = 61, p-value = 0.561, RMR = 0.029, RMSEA = 0, CFI = 0.955, and AGFI = 0.932.

5.1 Research Implication

The implication of those results will be beneficial to leaders by applying their personalities and transformational leadership to enhance leadership self-efficacy and increase the level of organizational commitment (Reza et al., 2022). Organizations could construct the evaluation model of a leaders’ performance and achieve organizational accomplishment by enhancing transformational leadership and leadership self-efficacy (Osintsev & Khalilian, 2023).

5.2 Research Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. First, the model of the current study is not devised to include all possible variables. Second, organizational commitment is measured by managers’ perceptions in this study. Organizational commitment can be measured through other different views, for example, subordinates’ perceptions. Moreover, the findings of this study may not be able to be generalized to other countries because of the existence of diverse cultures in different countries. The research population is only randomly selected from E-Commerce administrative managers in Taiwan, which is the applicability of the Eastern model of leadership. If leaders face different environmental challenges in different cultures, they are also likely to need different ways of handling their relations with others. Advanced examination of the applicability of the leadership model is necessary between Eastern and Western cultures. Those limitations could result in constraints of implications.

5.3 Future Researches

The composite models of similar research studies need to be investigated by collecting data from different countries to intensify the width and depth of future research studies. Future scopes of similar models could be investigated from various industries to test the interrelationships among personality, transformational leadership, leadership self-efficacy, and commitment. Future research studies related to the gender of managerial leaders also could be examined to explore the similar composite models of this research between male and female leaders.