Question at position 9 The authors’ aim in writing this article is to examine ... factors affecting job satisfaction and organisational commitment of Hong Kong and Australian managers.the range of variables affecting Australian and Hong Kong managers’ level of job satisfaction and organisational commitment.the effect of leadership style and organisational culture on perceived job satisfaction and organisational commitment in Australian versus Hong Kong managers.the perceived differences in leadership styles and organisational commitment of managers from Hong Kong and Australia.

Question

Question at position 9 The authors’ aim in writing this article is to examine ... factors affecting job satisfaction and organisational commitment of Hong Kong and Australian managers.the range of variables affecting Australian and Hong Kong managers’ level of job satisfaction and organisational commitment.the effect of leadership style and organisational culture on perceived job satisfaction and organisational commitment in Australian versus Hong Kong managers.the perceived differences in leadership styles and organisational commitment of managers from Hong Kong and Australia.

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

To begin, let's restate the core problem in my own words: we are evaluating which wording best captures the authors’ aim about factors affecting job satisfaction and organisational commitment across Hong Kong and Australian managers.
Option 1: 'factors affecting job satisfaction and organisational commitment of Hong Kong and Australian managers.' This phrasing centers on identifying factors but does not specify the comparative element (between Hong Kong and Australia) or the particular focus on leadership style or organisational culture. It is broad and could be interpreted as a descriptive inventory rather than a targeted analytical aim. It also leaves ambiguity about whether leadership or culture are the intended focal variables.
Option 2: 'the range of variables affecting Australian and Hong Kong managers’ level of job satisfaction and organisational commitment.' This choice emphasizes a range of variables and their impact on levels of satisfaction and commitment. While similar to Option 1 in broad scope, the word 'range' suggests comprehensiveness. However, like Option 1, it does not explicitly indicate the study’s comparative focus on leadership style or organisational culture, nor does it clearly specify a causal or relational emphasis between variables.
Option 3: 'the effect of leadership style and organisational culture on perceived job satisfaction and organisational commitment in Australian versus Hong Kong managers.' Here, we see a clear causal focus ('the effect of leadership style and organisational culture'), an explicit relational comparison ('Australian versus Hong Kong managers'), and a linkage to 'perceived' job satisfaction and organisational commitment. This aligns with a study aiming to examine how leadership and culture influence perceptions of satisfaction and commitment across the two managerial groups, capturing both the comparative element and the specific variables of interest.
Option 4: 'the perceived differences in leadership styles and organisational commitment of managers from Hong Kong and Australia.' This option centers on differences in leadership styles and organisational commitment themselves, framed as perceived differences. While related, it shifts emphasis toward differences in leaders and commitment rather than the effects of leadership style and culture on satisfaction and commitment, potentially focusing more on descriptive disparity rather than causal relationships.
In interpreting these options, it helps to keep in mind common phrasing in research aims: some statements describe broad factors, others specify causal relationships or comparative analyses, and some highlight perceptions. The third option uniquely combines the causal focus (the effect of leadership style and organisational culture), the outcomes (perceived job satisfaction and organisational commitment), and the cross-national comparison (Australian versus Hong Kong managers). The other options either lack the explicit causal link, differ in focus between leadership and culture versus outcomes, or emphasize differences in a way that could sidestep the mechanism linking leadership/style and culture to satisfaction and commitment.
Overall, Option 3 most coherently matches a typical research aim that investigates how leadership style and organisational culture influence perceived job satisfaction and organisational commitment across two managerial populations, coupling the key independent variables with the outcomes and the comparative design. The remaining options miss one or more essential elements such as a direct exploration of the effects, a precise cross-national comparative framing, or the specific linkage to perceived satisfaction and commitment.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

33. destructive self-interest e.g., avoiding [ Select ] Work responsibilities Unconditional love Governance structures Outside businesses Family discussions Creative innovation Employment policies Younger generations Melting pots

Theory X is consistent with participative management.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler