Question
FAST ANSWERS_PHD
LeadershipandJobSatisfaction.pdf
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63
© 2014 International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies (IJPES) is supported by Educational Researches and Publications Association (ERPA)
www.ijpes.com
International Journal of Psychology and Educational
Studies
Leadership and Job Satisfaction: Adjunct Faculty at a For-Profit University
Donald Barnett1
Grand Canyon University, USA
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article History:
Received 20.06.2017
Received in revised form
17.07.2017
Accepted 25.09.2017
Available online
30.09.2017
There is a lack of research in the for-profit sector of higher education in the United States. Likewise,
there is a lack of research on the factors that affect the job satisfaction of adjunct faculty. To address
these gaps in knowledge, a quantitative correlational study was performed to investigate the effect
of administrative leadership on the job satisfaction of adjunct faculty who teach online classes at a
for-profit university in the United States. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures
perceived leadership behaviors, and Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey, which measures job
satisfaction, were used to anonymously collect data from a sample of 77 adjunct faculty. The Full-
Range Leadership model, which is composed of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership behaviors, was the theoretical model for leadership. Pearson’s product moment
correlational analyses were performed to investigate the bi-variate relationships between the
variables. The dependent variable of total satisfaction had a statistically significant, direct and strong
correlation with the independent variable of transformational leadership (r = .536, p < .0005). The
strength and direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of total satisfaction
are associated with increases in scores in transformational leadership. Total satisfaction had a
statistically significant, indirect and moderate correlation with the independent variable of laissez-
faire leadership (r = -.372, p = .001). The strength and direction of the relationship indicated that lower
total satisfaction scores are associated with higher laissez-faire leadership scores. There was no
statistically significant relationship between transactional leadership and overall job satisfaction.
© 2017 IJPES. All rights reserved
Keywords:1
Job satisfaction, Full-Range Leadership, Adjunct Faculty, For-profit University, Transformational
Leadership, Postsecondary Education.
1. Introduction
Enrollments at for-profit universities in the United States have tripled sinced 2000, with close to 1.6 million
students registered in the year 2014 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). This increased enrollment,
along with the expansion of online education, has amplified the demand for classes that are taught entirely
online (Allen & Seaman, 2016), and produced a need for part time, non-tenured, adjunct, faculty to facilitate
these classes (Starcher & Mandernach, 2016). Regardless of the increased use of adjunct faculty to teach online
classes, few studies have investigated adjunct development, job satisfaction, or work experiences (Datray,
Saxon, & Martirosyan, 2014; Rich, 2015). Likewise, research in the for-profit sector of post-secondary education
is sparse when compared to the non-profit sector (Chung, 2012).
Currently, there is little research on the effects of perceived leadership behaviors in post-secondary, for-profit,
education on the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty members in the United States. This study sought to
discover if there was a correlation between the perceived use of Full-Range leadership behaviors by
administrators in post-secondary education and the overall job satisfaction of adjunct faculty members who
teach online classes at a for-profit university in the United States. Bateh and Heyliger (2014) observed that
1Corresponding author’s address: Grand Canyon University, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.03.006
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63
54
research should be conducted in the for-profit sector to determine if the job satisfaction of online adjuncts is
effected by the bahaviors of administrative leadership because the problems and concerns of for-profit
administrators are different than their colleagues in private or public universities. The absence of research on
this demographic is significant because a university’s faculty is a major contributor to the accomplishment of
organizational goals (Machado-Taylor et al., 2016). Likewise, Askling and Stensaker (2002) observed the
significance of researching higher education leadership practices.
1.1. Background
For-profit higher education in the United States, while not new, has expanded from less than 100,000 students
over 40 years ago (Wilson, 2010) to near 1.6 million by 2014 (National Center for Education Statistic, 2016).
Enrollments in the for-profit sector in the United States have increased at 9% each year over the past 30 years,
while enrollment in the non-profit sector only posted a 1.5% increase per year over the same time frame
(Wilson, 2010). Despite controversies concerning some for-profit schools (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013), the
growth potential in the for-profit sector of post-secondary education remains strong, especially in career
education , adult education, and online learning (Levy, 2015). Coupled with the expansion of the for-profit
sector of post-secondary education is the increased use of part-time non-tenured, or adjunct, faculty members
(Gilpin, Saunders, & Stoddard, 2015).
Adjunct faculty typically are part-time employees who serve in a non-permanent capacity. They are non-
tenured, temporary, employees of a university who work as independent contractors. Post-secondary
institutions pay per course that the adjunct teaches, or sometimes retain their services by yearly appointment
(Bradley, 2013). In 2010, adjunct faculty accounted for 50% of all faculty in post-secondary schools in the
United States. The use of adjunct faculty has flourished because of economic concerns associated with
maintaining faculty (Dailey-Hebert, Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee, & Norris, 2014; Eagan, Jaeger, & Grantham,
2015) and the flexibility provided by adjuncts, which is required in online programs (Starcher & Mandernach,
2016). Regardless of the importance of adjunct faculty, many universities do not adequately support their
adjunct faculty members (Kezar, 2013a). Generally, adjunct faculty members do not receive raises, and have
limited chances for advancement. Health insurance and retirement benefits are scarce, and adjuncts seldom
have a voice in university governance (Halcrow & Olson, 2011; Kezar, 2013b; Morton, 2012). Adjunct faculty
who teach online classes are especially disconnected from their full-time counterparts (Benton & Li, 2015), and
usually rely on other adjunct faculty members for support (Rich, 2015). Despite their importance to academia,
adjunct faculty are an overlooked population (Ott & Cisneros, 2015), and little research has been conducted
into factors that lead to adjunct faculty job satisfaction (Rich, 2015).
Asking and Stensaker (2002) advocated studying leadership behaviors in higher education. Moreover, Al-
Smadi and Oblan (2015) stated that depending on the type of school investigated, there are statistically
significant differences in faculty job satisfaction. Despite this, little research examining the correlation between
administrative leadership and job satisfaction in higher education has been performed (Alonderiene &
Majauskaite, 2016; Kalargyrou, Pescosolido, & Kalagrios, 2012). This research was important because of the
need for research on the effect of leadership behaviors on faculty in for-profit universities (Bateh & Heyliger,
2014).
1.2. Literature Review
1.2.1. Full Range Leadership Model. The theoretical foundation for this study was the Full-Range Leadership
Model (FRLM), which is composed of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.
Moynihan, Pandey, and Write (2012) observed that the FRLM is one of the best-formulated leadership models.
This is true because the three leadership styles examined by the model encompass almost all leadership
behaviors exhibited by leaders (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The framework of the FRLM allows researchers to
examine the advantages and disadvantages of varying leadership behaviors when investigating
administrative leadership in post-secondary education (Asmawi, Zakaria, & Wei, 2013).
Burns (1978) coined the phrases transactional and transformational leadership while investigating the
biographies of great political and historical leaders. Bass and Avolio (1993) expanded on Burns’ work and
developed the FLRM in order to find leadership behaviors that would be effective in non-political
organizations. Bass (1985) professed that leaders do not use one exclusive style of leadership. Instead, leaders
could use aspects of transactional and transformational leadership to effectively lead their followers. Recent
Donald E. Barnett
55
research indicates a mixture of transactional and transformational leadership displays a positive predictive
relationship with faculty job satisfaction (Bateh & Heyliger, 2014).
The FRLM is composed of five facets of transformational leadership, three elements of transactional
leadership, and one aspect of laissez-faire leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
1.2.1.1 Transformational Leadership. The theory of transformational leadership was introduced in a political
context by Burns (1978). Critical revisions to the theory were made by Bass (1985) and Avolio and Bass (2004).
Since then, the theory of transformational leadership has gone through significant meta-analytic and
theoretical examinations (Banks, McCauley, Gardner, & Guler, 2016; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Today,
it is one of the most recognizable theories on leadership behavior.
Transformational leadership represents how a leader motivates and inspires their followers to achieve their
higher potential (Burns, 1978). This style of leadership is based on encouragement, commendation,
acknowledgement, and trust (Mujkić, Šehić, Rahimić, & Jusić, 2014). Transformational leadership addresses
the needs of the followers, facilitates follower empowerment, and increases follower effort, efficiency, and
satisfaction (Bass, 2000). It is separated into four dimensions that can be distinguished theoretically and
empirically (Hobman, Jackson, Jimmieson, & Martin, 2012). These dimensions include individualized
consideration, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (Northouse, 2013).
1.2.1.1.1. Idealized Influence. Omar and Hussin (2013) observed that idealized influence is associated with how
a leader is viewed by their subordinates in terms of charisma, confidence, trust, power, consistency, and ideals.
Leaders who exhibit idealized influence consider the needs of others before their own, and demonstrate high
ethical standards. They are not motivated by personal gain and set challenging, but reasonable, goals for their
followers (Northouse, 2013). To more accurately describe and measure this dimension, idealized influence has
been divided into two different dimensions: Idealized influence (behavioral) and idealized influence
(attributed), with the former denoting how the leader behaves and the latter reflecting how the leader is
perceived by their followers (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
1.2.1.1.2. Inspirational Motivation. Sometimes referred to as inspirational leadership, inspirational motivation
entails inspiring and motivating subordinates. Inspirational leaders promote eagerness and confidence in their
followers by exhibiting dedication to the organization’s goals, communicating high expectations, and making
the employee an active part of achieving the vision of the organization (Northouse, 2013). Effective
communication of an inspiring and motivating vision is the primary component of inspirational motivation
(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999), which inspires subordinates to share in, and be committed to, the organization’s
vision (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Inspirational leaders foster a climate of trust, which in turn encourages follower
loyalty to the organization, even during downturns or crisis situations (Nisar, Rehman, Shah, & Rehman,
2013).
1.2.1.1.3. Individualized Consideration. In simple terms, individualized consideration denotes the leader’s ability
to make their followers feel special (Balyer, 2012). Leaders who display individualized consideration act as
advisor and teacher, and strive to nurture their subordinates so they reach their greatest potential (Northouse,
2013). Bass and Avolio (1993) stressed the encouraging facet of individualized consideration and the
significance of developing followers. Northouse (2013) emphasized that individualized consideration involves
teaching, mentoring, reinforcement, active listening, and offering emotional and social benefaction to the
follower.
1.2.1.1.4. Intellectual Stimulation. Avolio et al. (1999) stated intellectual stimulation encourages independent
and critical thinking by subordinates. Leaders that exhibit intellectual stimulation encourage innovative
thinking and the discovery of new ways to complete jobs (Anjali & Anand, 2015). Intellectually stimulating
leaders never criticize the ideas of their followers when they are different from their own, and encourage
problem solving by providing assignments that are intellectually challenging (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass, 1990).
1.2.1.2. Transactional Leadership. Burns (1978) devised the expression transactional leadership, which he
based on the 1947 work of Max Weber. Transactional leadership can be viewed as an agreement, or exchange.
Subordinates are rewarded, with pay or something else that is desired, in exchange for satisfactory
performance. Conversely, punishments are denoted for unsatisfactory performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The
basis for transactional leadership is the adage that everything has a price, and leaders define all benefits, codes
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63
56
of discipline, and job duties (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transactional leadership is composed of two individual
facets: management-by-exception and contingent reward.
1.2.1.2.1. Contingent Reward. The basis for contingent reward is self-interest. Management motivates employees
by offering a set price for their work. Contingent reward ensues when an agreement is made between leader
and follower as to the rewards for successful job completion and punishment for sub-standard performance
(Bass & Avolio, 1994). Managers understand the needs of the organization, establish clear expectations and
goals, and effectively communicate organizational expectations (Bass, 1997).
1.2.1.2.2. Management-by-exception. Management-by-exception is separated into two separate facets: active
management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception. Management-by-exception (active) occurs
when management actively monitors an employee’s work performance, acting before work declines, and
intervening if there is a violation of policy (Bass, 1997). This differs from management-by-exception (passive)
in that the passive dimension involves the leader acting only after work deteriorates or a problem occurs.
Management-by-exception (passive) often involves negative feedback, correction, criticism, or punishments
issued by management (Northouse, 2013). During the refinement of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
which measures the dimensions of the FRLM, management-by-exception (passive) was moved from a
transactional dimension to a dimension of laissez-faire, or passive-avoidant, leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
1.2.1.3. Laissez-Faire Leadership. Laissez-faire leadership is the lack of leadership. Laissez-faire leaders do not
act when a correction is needed. They do not offer any assistance to their subordinates and do not provide
followers with feedback that could help them reach their full potential (Northouse, 2013). Laissez-faire leaders
usually avoid taking any actions, shun responsibility, and are absent when needed (Bass, 1990). Even though
laissez-faire leadership is not usually found in entire organizations, it is still seen in the inaction of some
members of management (Bateh & Heyliger, 2014).
1.2.2. Job Satisfaction. Locke (1976) viewed job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience” (p. 1300). Job satisfaction is often seen as a
multifaceted combination of emotions, values, and the perceptions an individual has about the tasks
associated with their job (Chamberlain, Hoben, Squires, & Estabrooks, 2016). Spector (1985) observed that job
satisfaction may be viewed as the degree an individual is dissatisfied or satisfied with their job. Moradi,
Almutairi, Idrus, and Emami (2013) stated that job satisfaction is a mixture of job characteristics, environment,
and personal traits and feelings that are dynamic and, contingent on elements such as a changing of co-
workers, supervision, or the structure of the organization, may change over time.
1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Questions and Hypotheses. Research on the perceived effect of leadership on the job satisfaction of
non-tenured, adjunct faculty members who teach online classes is lacking in the for-profit segment of post-
secondary education. Research concerning the effect of leadership on job satisfaction in public and private
post-secondary institutions has yielded conflicting results. Bateh and Heyliger (2014) found transformational
and transactional leadership behaviors displayed a positive predictive relationship to faculty job satisfaction
at a public university in Florida, United States, but laissez-faire leadership produced negative results. Amin,
Shah, and Tatlah (2013) found transformational leadership had a positive relationship with job satisfaction.
Conversely transactional behaviors yielded a negative relationship to the job satisfaction of lecturers at a
university in Pakistan. Masum, Azad, and Beh (2015), in their research on faculty job satisfaction at a private
university in Bangladesh, found transactional behaviors yielded a positive relationship with the job
satisfaction of lecturers, while transformational leadership had no significant relationship. Given the
conflicting findings, the researcher proposes these research questions and null hypotheses:
RQ1: Does the transformational leadership style of a higher education administrator have a correlation
with the overall job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States?
H10: There is no statistically significant correlation between the administrators’ transformational
leadership style and the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United
States.
Donald E. Barnett
57
RQ2: Does the transactional leadership style of a higher education administrator have a correlation
with the overall job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States?
H20: There is no statistically significant correlation between the administrators’ transactional
leadership style and the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty in a for-profit university in the United
States.
RQ3: Does the laissez-faire leadership style of a higher education administrator have a correlation with
the overall job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States?
H30: There is no statistically significant correlation between the administrators’ laissez-faire leadership
style and the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States.
2. Method
This quantitative study used a correlational design to investigate the relationship, if any, between the
leadership style of administrators in a private, for-profit university, as perceived by the adjunct faculty who
teach online classes at the same university, and the overall job satisfaction of the same faculty. An examination
of the bi-variate relationships between the four variables was performed with a Pearson’s product moment
correlational analyses. The independent variables were overall transformational leadership, overall
transactional leadership, and overall laissez-faire leadership. The dependent variable was overall job
satisfaction.
2.1. Sample
The study population consisted of online, non-tenured, adjunct faculty at a private, for-profit, post-secondary
school in the United States. After IRB approval, the research site invited 600 prospective participants via email
to participate in an online survey. After accepting the invitation, 85 individuals who met the criteria for the
study took the survey. Eight individuals did not complete the survey, and their responses were removed. A
total of N = 77 respondents composed the sample.
2.2. Instruments
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x (MLQ) and Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) were the
instruments used in this study. The MLQ quantifies the nine different dimensions of the FRLM, using 36 total
questions that are assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale. (Avolio & Bass, 2004). George and Mallery (2016)
stated a Cronbach’s alpha value of .90 or more is deemed excellent, .80-.89 is seen as good, .70-.79 is judged
acceptable, .60-.69 is viewed as questionable, .50-.59 is viewed as poor, and less than .50 is deemed
unacceptable. Tests performed by Avolio and Bass(2004) found reliabilities of (α = .63) to (α = .92) accross the
scales of the MLQ. Garg and Ramjee (2013) discovered the MLQ yielded an average Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of (α = .97). For this study, the overall Cronbach alpha values were as follows: transformational
leadership (α = .95), transactional leadership (α = .69), and laissez-faire leadership (α = .79). The slightly low
Cronbach alpha value for overall transactional leadership was allowed because both dimensions of
transactional leadership displayed high Cronbach values, contingent reward (α = .73) and management-by-
exception (active) (α = .77). Moreover, the instrumentation has been used extensively and has shown
acceptable reliability in similar research and in literature; therefore, all constructs were considered acceptable
for use during inferential analysis.
Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) measures nine work factors, using 4 questions for each factor, on a 6-
point Likert type scale, for a total of 36 questions. Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, and Frings-Dresen (2003), in
their assessment of 29 different instruments that measured job satisfaction, found the JSS met all reliability
and validity criteria, and produced Cronbach alpha values of (α = .60) to (α = .80) across the scales, and an
overall Cronbach alpha of (α = .91). For this study, the Cronbach alpha value for overall job satisfaction was
(α = .90).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive data concerning the respondents and other demographic data was not collected for this study. The
descriptive analysis for the MLQ and JSS (Table 1) are as follows. The sample rated transactional leadership
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63
58
as the highest perceived overall style of leadership (M = 2.87), followed by transformational leadership (M =
2.85), and laissez-faire leadership (M = 2.79). The respondents perceived the three styles of leadership being
used at almost the same frequency, which indicates all three styles were used by administrators. To measure
overall job satisfaction, Spector (1997) stated the 36-item scale, which ranges from 36 to 216, should be
interpreted as follows: ranges from 36 to 108 indicate dissatisfaction, 109 to 144 indicate ambivalence, and 145
to 216 indicate satisfaction. The overall job satisfaction for this study (M = 116.34) indicates the respondents
are ambivalent about their overall job satisfaction, expressing neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction.
Table 1
Measures of Central Tendency for Study Instrumentation Scores (N = 77)
Instrument/Factor
M
SD
Mdn
Sample
Range
Transformational leadership 2.85 0.84 2.75 1.00 – 4.75
Transactional leadership 2.87 0.65 3.00 1.25 – 4.00
Laissez-faire leadership 2.79 0.77 2.88 1.38 – 4.63
Total satisfaction 116.34 19.92 115.00 69.00 – 154.00
Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Mdn = Median; MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire;
JSS = Job Satisfaction Survey.
3.2. Correlational analysis.
The researcher used Pearson’s product moment correlational analyses to examine the bi-variate relationships
between the four variables (Table 2). The dependent variable of total satisfaction had a statistically significant,
direct and strong correlation with the independent variable of transformational leadership (r = .536, p < .0005).
The strength and direction of the relationship indicated increases in the scores of total satisfaction are
associated with increases in scores in transformational leadership, and conversely, lower total satisfaction
scores were associated with lower transformational leadership scores. Total satisfaction had a statistically
significant, indirect and moderate correlation with the independent variable of laissez-faire leadership (r = -
.372, p = .001). The strength and direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of total
satisfaction were associated with decreases in scores of laissez-faire leadership, and conversely, lower total
satisfaction scores are associated with higher laissez-faire leadership scores. There was not a statistically
significant correlation between total satisfaction and transactional leadership.
The independent variable of transactional leadership had a statistically significant, direct and moderate
correlation with the independent variable of transformational leadership (r = .41, p < .0005). The strength and
direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of transactional leadership are associated
with increases in scores in transformational leadership, and conversely, lower transactional leadership scores
were associated with lower transformational leadership scores. Transactional leadership had a statistically
significant, indirect and weak correlation with the independent variable of laissez-faire leadership (r = -.23, p
= .043). The strength and direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of transactional
leadership were associated with decreases in scores of laissez-faire leadership, and conversely, lower
transactional leadership scores were associated with higher laissez-faire leadership scores. There was also a
statistically significant indirect and strong correlation between the independent variables of transformational
leadership and laissez-faire leadership (r = -.65, p < .0005). The strength and direction of the relationship
indicated that increases in the scores of transformational leadership were associated with decreases in scores
of laissez-faire leadership, and conversely, lower transformational leadership scores were associated with
higher laissez-faire leadership scores. Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients for the Pearson’s product
moment correlations.
Donald E. Barnett
59
Table 2
Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficients (N = 77)
Variable 1 2 3
1. Total satisfaction ---
2. Transformational leadership .54** ---
3. Transactional leadership -.02 .41** ---
4. Laissez-faire leadership -.37** -.65** -.23*
* p < .05
** p < .01
4. Discussion
4.1. Research Question 1
The first question investigated if, and to what extent, the transformational leadership style of the administrator
affected the overall job satisfaction of online, non-tenured, adjunct faculty who teach at a for-profit university
in the United States. It was hypothesized that overall transformational leadership behaviors would have a
significant correlation with overall job satisfaction. The outcome of the Pearson’s correlation showed a
statistically significant, direct and strong correlation between overall job satisfaction and transformational
leadership (r = .54, p < .0005). The strength and direction of the relationship indicated an increase in the score
of total satisfaction is associated with an increase in the score in transformational leadership. Conversely,
lower total scores in overall job satisfaction were associated with lower transformational leadership scores.
The results denoted there was a significant correlation between transformational leadership style and overall
job satisfaction; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
The researcher concluded that transformational leadership was beneficial to the overall job satisfaction of
online, non-tenured, adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States. This finding is consistent
with similar research that found job satisfaction displayed a positive relationship with transformational
leadership (Aydin, Sarier, & Uysal, 2013; Banks et al., 2016). The results of this study suggest that
administrators in post-secondary for-profit institutions should make use of transformational leadership
techniques to enhance the job satisfaction of their followers, although since only one university was
researched, it is difficult to generalize the results to similar institutions.
4.2. Research Question 2
The second question sought to discover if the administrators’ transactional leadership style affected the overall
job satisfaction of online, non-tenured, adjunct faculty who teach at a for-profit post-secondary institution in
the United States. The researcher hypothesized overall transactional leadership behaviors would have a
significant correlation with overall job satisfaction. The results showed transactional leadership did not have
a significantly significant relationship with job satisfaction (r = -.021, p = .855). The null hypothesis, in this case,
was not rejected.
There was not enough evidence to show a statistically significant correlation between the administrator’s
transactional leadership behaviors and overall job satisfaction. The findings agree with previous research that
found transactional leadership to display a statistically insignificant relationship with employee job
satisfaction (Amin et al., 2013; Tetteh & Brenyah, 2016), and contradicts previous research that found
transactional leadership either advantageous (Aydin et al., 2013; Bateh & Heyliger, 2014; Sakiru et al., 2014) or
disadvantageous to employee job satisfaction (Hijazi, Kasim, & Saud, 2016; Saleem, 2015).
4.3. Research Question 3
The third question investigated if the administrators’ laissez-faire leadership style affected the overall job
satisfaction of online, non-tenured, adjunct faculty who teach at a for-profit university in the United States.
The researcher hypothesized overall laissez-faire leadership behaviors would have a significant correlation
with overall job satisfaction. Total satisfaction had a statistically significant, indirect and moderate correlation
with the independent variable of laissez-faire leadership (r = -.37, p = .001). The strength and direction of the
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63
60
relationship indicated that higher laissez-faire leadership scores are associated with lower total satisfaction
scores, and vice versa. The null hypothesis was rejected.
There was sufficient evidence to denote a statistically significant correlation between the administrator’s
laissez-faire leadership behaviors and overall job satisfaction. This study confirms recent research, which
found job satisfaction had a significant negative relationship with laissez-faire leadership (Dussault & Frenette,
2015; Masum et al., 2015). The findings suggest that administrators should avoid using laissez-faire leadership
behaviors in their organization.
5. Conclusion
The findings of this research add to the body of knowledge on leadership and job satisfaction by examining
the relatively new demographic of adjunct faculty members who facilitate online classes for a private, for-
profit university in the United States. Based on this research, and previous studies, administrators in higher
education should make use of transformational leadership to enhance the job satisfaction of their followers.
Conversely, administrators should avoid laissez-faire leadership because of its negative correlation with
follower job satisfaction. Universities should also incorporate transformational leadership into their
leadership development programs. It must be noted that correlation does not equal causation, or even a
predictive relationship, but there is sufficient evidence that transformational leadership behaviors are
beneficial to job satisfaction in this sample.
Limitations for this study include the fact that only one university was investigated, and the results are not
generalizable to other institutions. In the future, it may be advantageous to investigate other, similar,
institutions of for-profit higher learning to determine if these results are unique to the organization studied.
Secondly, although a quantitative study provided valuable insight into the subject, another suggestion for
further research would be to perform a qualitative study to understand faculty motivations and opinions.
Third, this study did not examine the various demographic specifics of the sample. Future research could
examine if there was a difference between male and female faculty members, or differences in the perceptions
of adjunct faculty who teach traditional versus online classes.
Although the results of this study added to the body of knowledge, there is still significant research to be
performed in the for-profit sector of post-secondary education. Likewise, the relatively new phenomenon of
adjunct faculty who teach only online classes provides ample avenues to investigate their work experiences.
Given that online education may expand in the future, understanding factors that affect online instructors
work experiences may help universities provide a better learning environment to their faculty and students.
References
Al-Smadi, M. S., & Qbian, Y. M. (2015). Assessment of job satisfaction among faculty members and its
relationship with some variables in Najran University. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35), 117-
123.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card - Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved
from Online Learning Consortium: http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
Alonderiene, R., & Majauskaite, M. (2016). Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher education
institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(1), 140-164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2014-0106
Amin, M., Shah, S., & Tatlah, I. A. (2013). Impact of principals/directors’ leadership styles on job satisfaction
on the faculty members: Perceptions of the faculty members in a public university of Punjab,
Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 7(2), 97-112.
Anjali, K. T., & Anand, D. (2015). Intellectual stimulation and job commitment: A study of IT professionals.
IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 28-41.
Askling, B., & Stensaker, B. (2002). Academic leadership: Prescriptions, practices and paradoxes. Tertiary
Education and Management, 8, 12-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2002.9967073
Asmawi, A., Zakaria, S., & Wei, C. C. (2013). Understanding transformational leadership and R&D culture in
Malaysian universities. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 287-304.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.2612
Donald E. Barnett
61
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Third Edition Manual and Sampler Set.
Menlo Park, PA: Mind Garden Inc.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789
Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2013). The effect of school principals’ leadership styles on teachers’
organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 806-
811.
Balyer, A. (2012). Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals: A qualitative research based
on teachers’ perceptions. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 581-591. Retrieved
from http://www.iojes.net/userfiles/Article/IOJES_949.pdf
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and
transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass’ and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 7(3), 18-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190000700302
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public
Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bateh, J., & Heyliger, W. (2014). Academic administrator leadership styles and the impact on faculty job
satisfaction. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(3), 34-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.12806/v13/i3/rf3
Benton, S., & Li, D. (2015). Professional development for online adjunct faculty: The Chair’s role. The
Department Chair, 26(1), 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dch.30027
Bradley, P. (2013). Invisible no longer. Community College Week, 26(8), 6-7. Retrieved from http://npaper-
wehaa.com/ccweek#2014/05/12/?s=issues
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Chamberlain, S. A., Hoben, M., Squires, J. E., & Estabrooks, C. A. (2016). Individual and organizational
predictors of health care aide job satisfaction in long term care. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), 1-
9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1815-6
Chung, A. S. (2012). Choice of for-profit college. Economics of Education Review, 31, 1084-1101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.004
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, Inc.
Dailey-Hebert, A., Mandernach, B., Donnelli-Sallee, E., & Norris, V. (2014). Expectations, motivations, and
barriers to professional development: Perspectives from adjunct instructors teaching online. Journal
of Faculty Development, 28(1), 67-82.
Datray, J. L., Saxon, D. P., & Martirosyan, N. M. (2014). Adjunct faculty in developmental education: Best
practices, challenges and recommendations. Community College Enterprise, 20(1), 36-49.
Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2013). For-profit colleges. Future of Children, 13(1), 137-63. Retrieved from
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12553738
Dussault, M., & Frenette, É. (2015). Supervisors’ transformational leadership and bullying in the workplace.
Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology and Marketing, 117(3), 724-733.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/01.PR0.117c30z2
Eagan, M. K., Jaeger, A. J., & Grantham, A. (2015). Supporting the academic majority: Policies and practices
related to part-time faculty’s job satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 448-481.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0012
Garg, A. K., & Ramjee, D. (2013). The relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment at a
parastatal company in South Africa. The International Business and Economics Research Journal, 12(11),
1411-1436. http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/iber.v12i11.8180
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference, Routledge
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63
62
Gilpin, G. A., Saunders, J., & Stoddard, C. (2015). Why has for-profit colleges’ share of higher education
expanded so rapidly? Estimating the responsiveness to labor market changes. Economics of Education
Review, 45, 53-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.11.004
Halcrow, C., & Olson, M. R. (2008). Adjunct faculty: Valued resource or cheap labor? Focus on Colleges,
Universities, and Schools, 6(1), 1-8.
Hijazi, S., Kasim, A. L., & Daud, Y. (2016). Leadership styles and their relationship with the private
university employees’ job satisfaction in United Arab Emirates. Journal of Public Administration and
Governance, 6(4), 110-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v6i4.10347
Hobman, E. V., Jackson, C. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Martin, R. (2012). The effects of transformational
leadership behaviours on follower outcomes: An identity based analysis. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 20, 553-580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2010.490046
Kalargyrou, V., Pescosolido, A. T., & Kalagriros, E. A. (2012). Leadership skills in management education.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(4), 39-63.
Kezar, A. (2013a). Departmental cultures and non-tenure track faculty: Willingness, capacity, and
opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(2), 153-188.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2013.0011
Kezar, A. (2013b). Examining non-tenure track faculty perceptions of how departmental policies and
practices shape their performance and ability to create student learning at four-year institutions.
Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 571-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9288-5
Levy, D. (2015). For-profit versus nonprofit private higher education. International Higher Education, 54, 12-13.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In N. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Machado-Taylor, M. D., Soares, V. M., Brites, R., Ferreira, J. B., Farhangmehr, M., Gouveia, O. M., &
Peterson, M. (2016). Academic job satisfaction and motivation: Findings from a nationwide study of
Portuguese higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 541-559.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.942265
Masum, A. M., Azad, M. K., & Beh, L. (2015). Determinates of academics’ job satisfaction: Empirical evidence
from private universities in Bangladesh. Plos ONE, 10(5), 1-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117834
Moradi, E., Almutairi, D. O., Idrus, D., & Emami, R. (2013). The influence of organizational learning culture
on job satisfaction among academic staff. Journal of Global Management, 5(1), 56-66.
Morton, D. R. (2012). Adjunct faculty embraced: The institution’s responsibility. Christian Education Journal,
9(2), 398-407.
Moynihan, D., Pandey, S., & Wright, B. (2012). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters
performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 143-164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur024
Mujkić, A., Šehić, D., Rahimić, Z., & Jusić, J. (2014). Transformational leadership and employee satisfaction.
Ekonomski Vjesnik, 27(2), 259-270.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016).
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_303.10.asp?current=yes
Nisar, M., Rehman, K., Shah, T. A., & Rehman, I. (2013). Significant predictor and outcome of interpersonal
trust: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 7(9), 671-677.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.1021
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Omar, W. A., & Hussin, F. (2013). Transformational leadership style and job satisfaction relationship: A
study of structural equation modeling (SEM). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 3(2), 346-365.
Ott, M., & Cisneros, J. (2015, September 21). Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher
education: A comparison of full-time non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 23(90), 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1934
Rich, T. (2015). A worthy asset: The adjunct faculty and the influences on their job satisfaction. To Improve the
Academy, 34(1/2), 156-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20010
Donald E. Barnett
63
Sakiru, O. K., Othman, J., Silong, A. D., Kareem, S. D., Oluwafemi, A. O., & Yusuf, G. O. (2014). Relationship
between head of department leadership styles and lecturers job satisfactions in Nigerian public
universities. Asian Social Science, 10(6), 138-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n6p138
Saleem, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction and mediating role of perceived
organizational politics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 563-569.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.403
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction
survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00929796
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction survey, JSS page. Retrieved from
http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.html
Starcher, K., & Mandernach, B. J. (2016). An examination of adjunct faculty characteristics: Comparison
between non-profit and for-profit institutions. Online Journal of Distance Administration, 19(1).
Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring191/starcher_mandernach191.html
Tetteh, E. N., & Brenyah, R. S. (2016). Organizational leadership styles and their impact on employees’ job
satisfaction: Evidence from the mobile telecommunications sector of Ghana. Global Journal of Human
Resource Management, 4(4), 12-24.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership
research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.759433
Van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. (2003). Reliability and validity of
instruments measuring job satisfaction - a systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 53, 191-200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqg038
Wilson, R. (2010). For-profit colleges change higher education’s landscape. Chronicle of Higher Education,
56(22), A1-A9.
