The Literature Landscape: Organizational Leadership Reading Research
bigcord
retrieve-2.pdf
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
86
Full-Range Leadership as a Predictor of Extra Effort in Online Higher
Education: The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction
Donald E. Barnett, Ed.D.
Grand Canyon University
Abstract
Online higher education has rapidly expanded in the United States and displays a great
opportunity for growth. Coupled with the growth of e-learning is the need for adjunct faculty to
satisfy the need for additional online classes. Despite the importance of online adjunct faculty,
little research has been performed to determine their work experiences. This quantitative,
correlational study investigated the predictive relationship between the perceived use of
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors on the extra effort of
adjunct faculty who facilitate online classes at a for-profit university in the United States. In a
further investigation, the researcher investigated the variable of job satisfaction to determine if it
mediated the relationship between leadership style and extra effort. The researcher used the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Spector’s Job Satisfaction survey to collect data used
in inferential analysis. The researcher performed a stepwise multiple regression and a Baron and
Kenny mediation analysis to answer the research questions. The results showed perceived
transformational leadership behaviors displayed a statistically significant positive predictive
relationship with extra effort, and job satisfaction was a partial mediator between the relationship
of transformational leadership and extra effort. The results suggest transformational leadership is
beneficial to the extra effort put forth by the sample of adjunct faculty who teach online classes.
Introduction
The workforce in higher education has shifted over the past few decades. At one time, the
faculty of institutions of higher education were primarily tenured or tenure-track. Presently,
faculty in United States post-secondary education are primarily adjunct, non-tenure-track,
instructors (Eagan, Jaeger, & Grantham, 2015). Kezar (2012) observed that 75% of all new hires
at universities in the United States were part-time, adjunct faculty, and this number is steadily
increasing (Gilpin, Saunders, & Stoddard, 2015). The increased use of adjunct faculty coincides
with an increase of online class offerings. In the United States, enrollment in online classes
exceeded 5.8 million students in 2014, with 2.85 million students enrolled exclusively in online
courses (Allen & Seaman, 2016). The increased demand for online education has exceeded the
capabilities of full time, tenured faculty (Caruth & Caruth, 2013), and increased the demand for
adjunct faculty to facilitate online offerings.
Despite the increased employment of adjunct faculty to facilitate online courses, there is a
lack of research investigating online adjunct effectiveness (Datray, Saxon, & Martirosyan, 2014).
Moreover, there is a specific lack of research on the job satisfaction of adjunct, and particularly
adjunct faculty who teach online courses (Rich, 2015). Currently, there is a dearth of research
investigating the outcomes of perceived administrative leadership on online adjunct faculty extra
effort. This lack of research is notable because online adjuncts are relatively new to higher
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
87
education. Understanding their work experiences may provide information that can be used to
design leadership development programs for university administrators. The purpose of this paper
is to address this gap in knowledge and investigate the predictive relationship between the
administrative use of Full-Range Leadership, as perceived by adjunct faculty who facilitate
online courses, and the perceived extra effort offered by the same online adjunct faculty.
Additionally, the researcher investigated the mediating relationship of job satisfaction on any
perceived overall leadership style that displayed a predictive relationship with online adjunct
faculty extra effort.
Adjunct faculty members, despite their importance, typically do not receive adequate
support from university administrators (Kezar, 2013a). A typical adjunct has inadequate
opportunities for advancement, and seldom receives an increase in salary. Universities generally
do not offer health insurance to adjunct faculty, and retirement benefits are extremely limited.
Additionally, adjuncts seldom have influence in university policy. Universities employ adjuncts
at a considerable cost savings because they are remunerated at roughly one-third the salary of
tenured, or tenure-track, faculty (Halcrow & Olson, 2008; Kezar, 2013b; Morton, 2012).
Irrespective of the increasing importance of adjunct faculty, universities typically do not nurture
adjuncts in the same manner as tenure-track faculty. Generally, adjuncts are detached from their
full-time counterparts (Webb, Wong, & Hubbal, 2013; Dailey-Hebert, Mandernach, Donnelli-
Sallee, & Norris, 2014; Ott & Cisneros, 2015), their university, and department (Benton & Li,
2015). Adjuncts who teach online classes especially experience this disconnect, (Benton & Li,
2015), and adjunct faculty typically depend on other adjunct members of faculty for
encouragement (Rich, 2015). Given these circumstances, it is important to discover what
perceived leadership behaviors encourage online adjunct faculty members to go beyond
expectations and give extra effort in the performance of their job duties.
Literature Review
The theoretical foundation for this research was the Full-Range Leadership Model
(FRLM). The FRLM is comprised of three distinct styles of leadership: transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. Each of these styles of
leadership is divided into individual dimensions, which allows for a thorough investigation of
most behaviors demonstrated by leaders (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Researchers have used the
FRLM extensively in the exploration of perceived leadership behaviors in organizations, and it is
one of the best-conceived and most validated leadership models.
Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership encourages “performance
beyond expectations” from subordinates (Bass, 1985). Bass (1985), who expanded on the work
of Burns (1978), stated transformational leadership increases subordinate motivation and
willingness to exceed expectations by addressing follower needs and fostering the values and
ideals of the leader and organization. Consequently, followers strive to exceed expectations and
give extra effort in the performance of their duties. Transformational leaders go beyond
satisfying the basic needs of their followers by awakening and fulfilling their subordinates’
higher order needs, which encourages and arouses individuals to achieve their highest potential
(Burns, 1978).
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
88
Perceived transformational leadership behaviors have demonstrated a positive
relationship with employee performance (Thamrin, 2012), and enhancing the job satisfaction of
university faculty in online for-profit and traditional public universities in the United States
(Barnett, 2017; Bateh & Heyliger, 2014). Avolio and Bass (2004), in their modification of the
FLRM, divided transformational leadership into five dimensions.
Idealized influence. A leader’s demonstration of high ethical and moral standards
exemplifies idealized influence. Leaders who are perceived as using idealized influence
do not seek personal gain (Northouse, 2013), and are a focus of imitation and respect
from their subordinates (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass and Avolio (1994) suggested
followers might desire to emulate their leaders and identify with them because of a
leader’s perceived dedication to ethical and moral conduct. Stadelmann (2010) found
idealized influence was a significant predictor of follower extra effort. Avolio and Bass
(2004) separated idealized influence into two distinct behaviors: behavioral and
attributed, with behavioral denoting how followers perceive the leader’s ethical and
moral behaviors, and attributed denoting the overall perceptions of the leader’s ability to
lead.
Inspirational motivation. Leaders use inspirational motivation by effectively
communicating high expectations. They motivate and inspire subordinates by
demonstrating enthusiasm and optimism about the organization’s future (Northouse,
2013). Leaders convey a promising vision of the future and motivate their followers to be
dedicated to the vision of the organization (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Inspirational
communication is a primary aspect of inspirational motivation (Avolio, Bass, & Jung,
1999).
Intellectual stimulation. Intellectual stimulation consists of encouraging
subordinates to exhibit innovative behaviors, express creativity, and do their utmost to
exhibit performance that exceeds expectations (Northouse, 2013). Leaders provide
challenging assignments and encourage problem solving to formulate new ways of
thinking. Leaders never criticize their subordinate’s ideas. Rather, they encourage
independent thought and creative approaches that facilitate the innovation in the
completion of job tasks (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Individualized consideration. A leader acts as a mentor and coach to develop
their followers to their fullest ability. Leaders who exhibit individualized consideration
actively and effectively listen to their followers, express encouragement, frequently
interact with their subordinates, and offer emotional and social support when needed
(Northouse, 2013). Balyer (2012) observed individualized consideration is a behavior that
makes a follower feel unique and appreciated.
Transactional Leadership. Burns (1978), inspired by the 1947 work of Max Weber,
initially formed the Transactional Leadership Theory. Transactional leaders use praises, rewards,
and promises that promote self-interest to motivate their followers to achieve organizational
goals (Burns, 1978). Leadership strictly defines all job duties, benefits are clearly stated, and
disciplinary codes are strictly enforced (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transactional leadership is
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
89
composed of three dimensions: contingent rewards, management-by-exception (active), and
management-by-exception (passive). Avolio and Bass (2004) later moved management-by-
exception (passive) to laissez-faire leadership for measuring leadership perceptions with the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Contingent reward. As the name implies, contingent reward is based on exchanges, or
agreements, between leader and follower that denote rewards for accomplishing the agreed upon
work, and punishments for substandard performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Contingent reward
is derived from an agreement between two individuals, or parties, that sets forth a contract that
designates an exchange of currency, or other item of value, for a specific action (Burns, 1978).
Contingent reward largely uses self-interest as a method of motivation, and leadership clearly
communicates all individual goals and organizational expectations to the employee (Bass, 1997).
Bass (1985) observed contingent rewards foster follower confidence and reinforce performance
expectations.
Management-by-exception (active). Bass (1997) maintained leaders who practice
management-by-exception (active) inform their followers of all organizational policies and
goals, and communicate clear individual expectations. Leaders actively monitor their employees
work, and take appropriate action before there is a violation of company policy or deterioration
in the quality of the work. Managers pay close attention to employee performance and are quick
to take corrective action when needed.
Management-by-exception (passive). Bass (1997) observed management-by-exception
(passive) differs from the active form because the leader only makes a curative action after a
problem occurs or an employee’s work becomes substandard. Managers typically use negative
reinforcements, such as negative feedback, criticism, punishment, or some other form of
correction in this dimension of leadership (Northouse, 2013). As noted earlier, Avolio and Bass
(2004) changed management-by-exception (passive) to a dimension of laissez-faire leadership
for measuring leadership perceptions.
Laissez-faire Leadership. Bass and Riggio (2006) stated laissez-faire leadership, in the
managerial context, involves the absence and avoidance of any form of leadership. Laissez-faire
leadership differs from management-by-exception (passive) in several ways. A laissez-faire
leader does not act when a correction is required. They do not provide necessary feedback, offer
aid, or develop their followers in any way (Northouse, 2013). Laissez-faire leaders avoid acting
and shirk responsibility. They are inactive, indifferent, uninfluential, inattentive, and absent
when their presence is required by their followers (Bass, 1990). Laissez-faire leadership
behaviors are still perceived in some managers (Bateh & Heyliger, 2014), but seldom observed
in entire organizations (Bass, 1990).
Extra Effort. Seltzer and Bass (1990) observed extra effort entails employee behaviors
that benefit the organization, which go beyond one’s normal job expectations. Locke, Shaw,
Saari, and Latham (1981) asserted extra effort represented an individual’s inner willingness to
devote extra energy and time to achieving the goals of the organization. Similarly, Morris (2009)
defined extra effort to be when an employee voluntary gives effort, intensity, and time that goes
beyond expectations. Avolio and Bass (2004) stated extra effort involved the leader’s capability
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
90
to inspire their followers to try harder, surpass management expectations, and foster their
aspiration to succeed. Bass (1990) stated individuals would give extra effort for leaders who
exhibit transformational leadership behaviors. Transactional leadership and passive
management-by-exception, according to Bass (1990), are less effective in encouraging extra
effort on the part of subordinates. In agreement with Bass, Stadelmann (2010) found
transformational leadership was a significant predictor of follower extra effort.
Extra Effort and Job Satisfaction. Several theories have been set forth to explain extra
effort. The expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) stated individuals expend effort in proportion to the
rewards they expect to receive. Moreover, the expectancy theory states leaders must attempt to
understand their employees’ “valence of possible outcomes and his expectancies regarding the
consequences of different levels of effort for attaining them” (p. 192). Herzberg’s
Motivator/Hygiene Theory recognized extrinsic motivators are inclined to promote greater job
satisfaction, which in turns leads to an individual exerting extra effort. Likewise, the Reciprocity
Theory (Batemen & Organ, 1983) and Social Exchange Theory (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994)
suggested individuals who exhibit high levels of job satisfaction will perform better than
employees with lower levels of job satisfaction.
Philbin (1997) discovered evidence suggesting job satisfaction is an important reason
why individuals put forth extra effort in their jobs. Trofino (2003) found increases in job
satisfaction led to increases in extra effort. In the educational context. Nguni, Sleegers, and
Denessen (2006) discovered high levels of job satisfaction in teachers resulted in extra effort in
helping their students. Given the theoretical and empirical evidence, it is prudent to conclude job
satisfaction plays a significant role in extra effort.
Research Questions
Previous research has shown positive relationships between the perceived use of
transformational leadership behaviors and employee extra effort (Stadelmann, 2010). Bass
(1990) determined transformational leaders were effective in fostering employee extra effort.
Avolio and Bass (2004) noted contingent reward, a dimension of transactional leadership, was
associated with the exchange of rewards for extra effort. Similarly, Vroom (1964) observed
individuals tend to expend effort in relation to the expected reward for their effort, which
suggests transactional leadership might have a positive relationship to employee extra effort.
Laissez-faire leadership, particularly passive management-by-exception, is generally ineffective
in promoting extra effort (Bass, 1990). The reciprocity and social exchange theories observed
that job satisfaction is an important variable in increased job satisfaction. Based on these
observations, and the previous discussions regarding the dimensions of full-range leadership and
employee extra effort, the study proposes the research questions and null hypotheses listed
below:
RQ1: To what extent does the administrators’ transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership style, as perceived by the online adjunct faculty who report to them,
predict the extra effort of the same faculty?
H10: There is no statistically significant predictive relationship between the
administrator’s transformational leadership style and extra effort.
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
91
H20: There is no statistically significant predictive relationship between the
administrator’s transactional leadership style and extra effort.
H30: There is no statistically significant predictive relationship between the
administrator’s laissez-faire leadership style and extra effort.
RQ2: Does overall job satisfaction mediate the relationship between any overall
leadership style that displayed a predictive relationship with extra effort in this study and
extra effort?
H40: Overall job satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between any overall style
of leadership that displayed a positive relationship with extra effort in this study and extra
effort.
Method
Design. To determine if administrative leadership behaviors were related to the extra
effort of adjunct faculty who teach online classes, the researcher used a Pearson’s correlation to
determine if there was a correlation between perceived overall transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership behaviors and online adjunct faculty extra effort. Next, the researcher
performed stepwise multiple linear regressions with overall transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership as the predictor variables and extra effort as the criterion variable to
determine if there was any significant predictive relationship between variables.
Finally, the researcher conducted a Baron and Kenny mediation analysis to assess if
overall job satisfaction mediated the relationship between any predictive overall leadership style
and extra effort. The researcher performed three regressions to determine whether the data
supported mediating relationship. Four criteria must be met for mediation to be established,: 1)
the independent variable must display a relationship to the dependent variable, 2) the
independent variable must be related to the mediator variable, 3) the mediator variable must
show a relationship to the dependent variable while in the presence of the independent variable,
and 4) the independent variable must cease to be a significant predictor of the dependent variable
in the presence of the mediator variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Population. The sample for this study was taken from a population of approximately 800
adjunct faculty members at a large for-profit university in the Midwest United States. After
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from the research site, the population was sent an
email that invited participation in the study provided they had taught an online class within the
past six months. The invitation gave directions to access the survey, which was hosted on an
online survey site. Of the 800 adjuncts, 85 individuals responded to the survey invitation. Out of
the 85 respondents, 77 completed the survey in its entirety. Given the large size of the university,
anonymity concerns, and the fact that this research did not target a specific department within the
university, it is impossible to know how many leaders were rated, or if more than one respondent
rated an individual supervisor.
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
92
Instruments. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x short (MLQ) (Avolio &
Bass, 2004) was used to collect data on perceived leadership behaviors and extra effort. The
MLQ measured the nine dimensions of the FRLM and extra effort using 39 questions measured
on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The MLQ used four questions each to measure perceptions of the
nine dimensions of the FRLM: inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, idealized
influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavioral), individual consideration, contingent
reward, management-by-exception (active), management-by-exception (passive), and laissez-
faire. The MLQ also measured extra effort using three questions. To measure overall perceptions
of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, the individual dimensions of each
leadership style were combined to create a higher order construct, as suggested by Bass, Avolio,
Jung, and Berson (2003). Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (Spector, 1997) was used to
collect data on overall job satisfaction. The JSS used 36 questions to measure nine dimensions of
job satisfaction on a 6-point Likert-type scale. The job factors measured included perceptions of
the nature of work, communication, operating procedures, coworker relationships, fringe
benefits, contingent rewards, supervision, pay, and promotion potential. Per Spector (1997), the
researcher summed the totals of all the individual dimensions to create a higher order construct
to measure overall job satisfaction.
Validity. Per George and Mallery (2012), a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.90 or more is
considered excellent, 0.80-0.89 is deemed good, 0.70-0.79 is regard as satisfactory, 0.60-0.69 is
considered questionable, 0.50-0.59 is poor, and below 0.50 is unacceptable. For this study, all
constructs were deemed acceptable (Table 1).
Data Analysis
Demographic questions were not used in this study. Instead, the researcher produced the
following table that displays the means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha for the
populations perceptions of their direct superior’s use of transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, and laissez-faire leadership, and their own extra effort, and overall job satisfaction
(Table 1). Significant findings from an analysis of the data showed the sample perceived
transactional leadership as the most used style of leadership (M = 2.87), followed by
transformational leadership (M = 2.85), and laissez-faire leadership (M = 2.79). Avolio and Bass
(2004) observed that for a variable to be viewed as used extensively, the mean should surpass M
= 3, which none of the variables measured by the MLQ achieved. Per Spector (1997) a mean
value of 116.34 indicated ambivalence towards job satisfaction; neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Table 1.
Measures of Central Tendency and Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (N = 77)
Leadership Style M SD α
Transformational leadership 2.85 0.84 0.95
Transactional leadership 2.87 0.65 0.69
Laissez-faire leadership 2.79 0.77 0.79
Overall job satisfaction 116.34 19.92 0.90
Extra effort 2.90 1.00 0.78
Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
93
The researcher performed a Pearson’s correlation to discover if there was a correlation
between extra effort and perceived overall transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership (Table 2). Based on the results of the study, transformational leadership is related to
extra effort (r = .59, p < .01). Transactional leadership is related to extra effort (r = 0.37, p <
0.01). Laissez-faire leadership is related to extra effort (r = -0.45, p < .01).
Table 2.
Pearson’s Correlation with Four Variables Variable 1 2 3
Extra effort --- --- ---
Transformational leadership 0. 59** --- ---
Transactional leadership 0. 37** 0.44** ---
Laissez-faire leadership -0.45** -0.65** -0.23*
* p < .01
** p < .05
In an examination of the predictive relationship between perceived overall leadership
behaviors and extra effort, a stepwise multiple linear regression was calculated to predict extra
effort based on the independent variables transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
and laissez-faire leadership (Table 3). A significant regression was found (F (1,75) = 39.74, p <
.001), with an r2 of 0.35. The adjusted r-square value of 0.34 indicated approximately 34% of the
variability in the dependent variable of extra effort was predicted by the three independent
variables in the model. Participants’ predicted extra effort was equal to 0.90 – 0.14
(Transformational Leadership). The squared semi-partial correlation for the predictor of
transactional leadership, 0.35, indicated approximately 35% of unique variance on the outcome
of extra effort could be attributed to the transformational leadership variable. Extra effort
increased 0.14 points for every 1-point increase in transformational leadership. Transformational
leadership was the only significant predictor of extra effort (β = 0.59, p < 0.01). This suggests
increases in transformational leadership are associated with increases in extra effort.
Table 3.
Stepwise Multiple Regression Results for Extra Effort with Three Variables Variable B SE B β t Sig.
Transformational leadership 0.14 0.02 0.59 6.30 < 0.01
Transactional leadership 0.13 0.08 0.16 1.59 0.12
Laissez-faire leadership -0.08 0.08 -0.12 -0.92 0.36
Constant 0.90 0.33 --- --- ---
Model Summary: F = 39.744, p <.01
N = 77
R2 = .346
Adjusted R2 = .338
Note. Sig.= Significance (p-value).
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
94
Lastly, since transformational leadership was the only variable to display a significant
predictive relationship with extra effort, the researcher performed a Baron and Kenny mediation
analysis to assess if overall job satisfaction mediated the relationship between perceived
transformational leadership and extra effort (Table 4). The researcher conducted a regression
with transformational leadership predicting extra effort. The regression of extra effort on
transformational leadership was significant, (F(2, 75) = 39.74, p < .01). The results showed
transformational leadership was a significant predictor of extra effort, (B = 0.14), indicating the
first criterion for mediation was met. The researcher then conducted a regression with
transformational leadership predicting overall job satisfaction. The regression of overall job
satisfaction on transformational leadership was significant, (F(2, 75) = 30.26, p < .01), showing
transformational leadership was a significant predictor of overall job satisfaction, (B = 2.54).
This indicated the second criterion for mediation was met.
Next, the researcher performed a regression with transformational leadership and overall
job satisfaction predicting extra effort. The regression of extra effort on transformational
leadership and overall job satisfaction was significant, (F(3, 74) = 43.03, p < .01), which
suggested transformational leadership and overall job satisfaction accounted for a significant
amount of variance in extra effort. The individual predictors were examined one last time. The
results found overall job satisfaction was a significant predictor of extra effort when
transformational leadership was included in the model, (B = -0.03), indicating the third criterion
for mediation was satisfied. The results showed transformational leadership was a significant
predictor of extra effort when overall job satisfaction was included in the model, (B = 0.21),
indicating the fourth criterion for mediation was not satisfied. Since criterion 1, 2, and 3 were
met, while criteria 4 was not, partial mediation is therefore supported.
Table 4.
Regression Results with Overall Job Satisfaction Mediating the Relationship between Extra Effort and Transformational Leadership
Dependent Independent B SE t p
Regression 1:
Extra effort Transformational 0.14 0.02 6.30 < 0 .01
Regression 2:
Job satisfaction Transformational 2.54 0.46 5.50 < 0.01
Regression 3:
Extra effort Transformational 0.21 0.02 9.25 < 0.01
Job satisfaction 0.03 0.00 5.53 < 0.01
Results
Null Hypothesis 1
H10: There is no statistically significant predictive relationship between the
administrator’s transformational leadership style and extra effort.
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
95
The predictor of transformational leadership was statistically significant for the outcome
of extra effort (β = 0.59, p < 0.01). Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected. There is sufficient evidence
to indicate there is a statistically significant predictive relationship between the perceived use of
transformational leadership behaviors and extra effort in the sample.
Null Hypothesis 2
H20: There is no statistically significant predictive relationship between the
administrator’s transactional leadership style and extra effort.
The predictor of transactional leadership was not statistically significant to the outcome
of extra effort (p = 0.12). Null Hypotheses 2 was not rejected. There is not sufficient evidence to
indicate there is a statistically significant predictive relationship between the administrators’
perceived transactional leadership behaviors and extra effort in the sample.
Null Hypothesis 3
H30: There is no statistically significant predictive relationship between the
administrator’s laissez-faire leadership style and extra effort.
The predictor of overall laissez-faire leadership was not statistically significant to the
outcome of extra effort (p = 0.36). Null Hypotheses 3 was not rejected. There is not sufficient
evidence to indicate there is a statistically significant predictive relationship between the
administrators’ perceived laissez-faire leadership behaviors and extra effort in the sample.
Null Hypothesis 4
H40: Overall job satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between any overall style
of leadership that displayed a positive predictive relationship with extra effort in this
study and extra effort.
The results of a Baron and Kenny mediation found job satisfaction was a partial mediator
between the relationship of transformational leadership, the only overall predictor of extra effort
in this study, and extra effort. Null Hypotheses 4 was rejected. There is sufficient evidence to
indicate job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership
and extra effort.
Discussion
This study sought to determine if the use of transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership, as perceived by the sample, had a predictive relationship with the perceived
extra effort of adjunct faculty who taught online classes. The secondary goal of this study was to
determine if job satisfaction had a mediating effect between leadership style and extra effort. The
results of stepwise multiple regressions showed perceived transformational leadership behaviors
were the only significant predictor of extra effort. These results suggested the use of
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
96
transformational leadership was beneficial to the extra effort put forth by the individuals in the
sample, which addressed RQ1.
This study confirmed the findings of Stadelmann (2010), who found perceived
transformational leadership behaviors displayed a positive significant predictive relationship
with extra effort. This study also confirmed the work of Bass (1990), who found individuals put
forth extra effort for leaders who are perceived to exhibit transformational leadership behaviors.
Likewise, this research agreed with Bass’s (1990) observation that perceived transformational
leadership behaviors were more beneficial to organizations than perceived transactional
leadership behaviors. Due to the nature of this study, it is unknown how many supervisors were
rated by the sample, or if more than one respondent rated an individual supervisor. Regardless,
the results suggested the adjunct faculty who taught online classes at the research site preferred
their leader’s perceived use of transformational leadership. Not only did the perceptions of
transformational leadership display a significant positive relationship to extra effort, the results
of the bivariate regression used in the mediation analysis showed perceived transformational
leadership behaviors were also a positive predictor of overall job satisfaction. This is interesting
because the sample rated transformational leadership as the second most used style of leadership
(M = 2.85) at the research site, behind transactional leadership (M = 2.87) which the sample rated
as the perceived most used leadership style. Laissez-faire leadership displayed a mean value of
2.79. The sample perceived all three styles of leadership used to a similar extent, even though
only perceived transformational leadership behaviors displayed a positive relationship with extra
effort. Moreover, the sample indicated ambivalence towards their job satisfaction, and displayed
a marginal production of extra effort. This suggests that there may be a disconnect between
leadership, or other organizational factors, and adjunct faculty who teach online courses at this
university.
Lastly, this study added to academic knowledge concerning the mediating effect of job
satisfaction on the relationship between perceived transformational leadership behaviors and
extra effort. This study found job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between
perceived transformational leadership behaviors and extra effort, which answered R2. The
Reciprocity Theory (Bateman & Organ, 1983) and Social Exchange Theory (Konovsky & Pugh,
1994) suggested overall job satisfaction is an important factor in the extra effort of individuals.
Given the finding that job satisfaction was a partial mediator between the relationship of the
sample’s perceptions of their direct superior’s use transformational leadership and extra effort,
this study agreed with, and adds to the knowledge on these two theories. Again, transactional
leadership was perceived by the sample as the most used style of leadership by their superiors (M
= 2.87), which might help explain the apathy of the sample towards their job satisfaction (M =
116), and their relatively average production of extra effort (M = 2.90).
Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a predictive relationship between
the perceived use of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors by the
sample’s direct superior and adjunct faculty extra effort, and to investigate the mediating effect
of job satisfaction on the relationship between perceived transformational leadership behaviors
and extra effort. The results showed perceived transformational leadership behaviors were a
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
97
significant predictor of extra effort. Additionally, the results showed job satisfaction was a partial
mediator of the relationship between perceived transformational leadership behaviors and extra
effort. These results are significant because they add to the limited amount of research on adjunct
faculty who teach in an online environment.
The study sample displayed ambivalence about their job satisfaction and produced only a
marginal amount of extra effort. In addition, the sample perceived transactional leadership,
which did not display a significant relationship with extra effort, as the leadership style most
used by their direct superior. Perceived transformational leadership behaviors were the sole
significant predictor of extra effort and displayed a positive relationship with job satisfaction.
The high perceived use of transactional leadership might indicate leadership training in
transformational leadership is warranted at the research site. Increases in the administration’s use
of transformational leadership behaviors might increase extra effort and job satisfaction in the
sample. The results of this research provided information that may be beneficial in designing
leadership development programs intended specifically for leaders who supervise online adjunct
faculty.
This study does have limitations. This research study only investigated one school, which
limits the conclusions to just one university. While a quantitative study produced data that
allowed for inferential statistics, the study is limited by not investigating the motives and insight
a qualitative study may have provided; therefore, future research could focus on a qualitative
examination of this topic. Demographic questions were not used in this study, which would have
allowed for a more thorough investigation of the sample. Future research could investigate if
there are differences in leadership perceptions based on age, length of employment, sex, or
another demographic factor. The sample for this study was taken from a population of online
adjunct faculty from a for-profit university. Similar research on the relationship between
leadership and extra effort should also be conducted in the public and private sectors of higher
education because the experiences of online adjuncts in these sectors might be different than
their counterparts in the for-profit sector. Another recommendation for further research is that
additional studies regarding online adjunct experiences be conducted in the for-profit sector of
higher education, which have recently been the subject of controversy. Lastly, similar research in
different countries is recommended. This research might provide insight into any cultural
differences between samples. Future research investigating the perceptions of online adjuncts
work experiences is warranted because of the limited amount of research on this population and
their importance to the educational system.
Online adjuncts, while a relatively new phenomenon, play an important role in higher
education. Understanding their work experiences and perceptions may help universities provide
effective support for these often-overlooked employees. Moreover, providing proper support for
online adjuncts may, in turn, foster a better educational experience for students. The results of
this research should be considered when designing leadership development programs for
individuals who supervise online faculty.
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
98
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge the excellent proof reading skills of my wife, Heather
Barnett, without whose support this study would not have been possible.
References 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
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 and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.
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.
Barnett, D. (2017). Leadership and Job Satisfaction: Adjunct Faculty at a For-Profit University.
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 4(3), 53-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.03.006
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(), 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries. American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037.0027-9010.88.2.207
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
99
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
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 587-
595.
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
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Caruth, G. D., & Caruth, D. L. (2013). Adjunct faculty: Who are these unsung heroes of
academe? Current Issues in Education, 16(3), 1-10.
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.
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
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and
reference (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
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.
Kezar, A. (2012). Examining nontenure 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
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
100
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
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance 1969-1980. Psychological bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125
Morris, R. J. (2009). Employee work motivation and discretionary work effort. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Brisbane Graduate School of Business, Brisbane.
Morton, D. R. (2012). Adjunct faculty embraced: The institution’s responsibility. Christian
Education Journal, 9(2), 398-407.
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership on
teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship
behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
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
Philbin, L. P. (1997). Transformational leadership and the secondary school principal.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
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
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction survey, JSS page.
Stadelmann, C. (2010). Swiss armed forces militia system: Effect of transformational leadership
on subordinates’ extra effort and the moderating role of command structure. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 92(2), 83-93.
Journal of Leadership Education DOI:10.12806/V18/I1/R6 January 2019 RESEARCH
101
Thamrin, H. M. (2012). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational
commitment on job satisfaction and employee performance. International Journal of
Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(5), 566-572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/ijimt.2012.v3.299
Trofino, J. (2003). Power sharing: A transformational strategy for nurse retention, effectiveness,
and extra effort. Nursing Leadership Forum, 8(2), 64-71.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Webb, A. S., Wong, T. J., & Hubbal, H. T. (2013). Professional development for adjunct
teaching faculty in a research-intensive university: Engagement in scholarly approaches
to teaching and learning. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher
Education, 25(2), 231-238.
Author Biography
Donald E. Barnett, Ed.D., a past Presidential Management Fellow, is a manager for the
Social Security Administration. He also serves on several dissertation committees at Grand
Canyon University as a Content Expert on leadership, job satisfaction, and motivation.
Copyright of Journal of Leadership Education is the property of Journal of Leadership Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
