COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
(MBA PROGRAM)

EFFECT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON EMPLOYEES’

JOB SATISFACTION: THE CASE OF DEBRE BERHAN
UNIVERSITY

GEBRETSADIK ESTIFANOS

JUNE, 2020
DEBRE BERHAN, ETHIOPIA
 DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT (MBA PROGRAM)

EFFECT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON EMPLOYEES’ JOB

SATISFACTION: THE CASE OF DEBRE BERHAN
UNIVERSITY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE

OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

BY: GEBRETSADIK ESTIFANOS

ADVISOR: BEKELE MEAZA (PhD)

JUNE, 2020
DEBRE BERHAN, ETHIOPIA

i
 DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis is my genuine work, and that all sources of materials used for this thesis
have been profoundly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for Master of Arts at Debre Berhan University and it is deposited at the University
library to be made available for users under the rule of the library. I declare that this thesis is not
submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma or
certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate
acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or
reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the department
or the Dean of College of Business and Economics when in his/her judgment the proposed use of
the material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be
obtained from the author and advisors of this thesis.

NAME: GEBRETSADIK ESTIFANOS MASRESHA

SIGNATURE: ________________________

DATE OF SUBMISSION: ______________

i
 DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

APPROVAL SHEET – I

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effect of Leadership Style on Employees’ Job
Satisfaction: The Case of Debre Berhan University” submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts with specialization in Business Administration
of the Graduate Program of the Management, College of Business and economics, Debre
Berhan University and is a record of original research carried out by Gebretsadik Estifanos,
(DBUE/2190/10) under my supervision, and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any
other degree or diploma.

The assistance and help received during the course of this investigation have been duly
acknowledged. Therefore, I recommend that it to be accepted as fulfilling the thesis
requirements.

NAME: BEKELE MEAZA (PhD)

SIGNATURE: ________________

DATE: _______________________

ii
 DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

APPROVAL SHEET – II

We, the undersigned members of the boarded of the examiners of the final open defense by
Gebretsadik Estifanos have read and evaluated his thesis/dissertation entitled “Effect of
Leadership Style on Employees’ Job Satisfaction: The Case of Debre Berhan University”, and
examined the candidate. This is therefore to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Business Administration.

Board of Examiners

_____________________________ _________________ _________________

Name of External Examiner Signature Date

_____________________________ _________________ _________________

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

_____________________________ _________________ _________________

Name of Chair Person Signature Date

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Bekele Meaza (PhD) for his
guidance, insight and scientific advice throughout the research work and thesis write-up.

Mr. Solomon Estifanos was my comforter, enthusiastic and vocal supporter. He cajoled me into
going along when I was tired, frustrated and discouraged in the course of my study. I am thus
deeply indebted to him, for his downright advice and encouragement in every step of my work
including professional contribution and guidance starting from the initial stage of the research to
the end.

May Almighty God bless my friend, Yoseph Getye with long life, sound health, protection and
happiness forever for his inspiration and unreserved help. I deeply acknowledge his support in
many ways even he has paid worth leaving his career aside. I also take this opportunity to owe
my sincere gratitude to Debre Berhan University for providing the study opportunity and
research fund. My thanks also goes to Human Resource Directorate of the University for its
cooperation of giving the necessary information and voluntary participation at the time of data
collection.

Finally, this thesis would not have come to this stage without the unfailing support of my family-
especially my father, Ato Estifanos Masresha, mother, W/ro Deribe Gebreya, and brother
Mekonnen Estifanos. Their encouragement, enthusiasm, and constant supply of
perspective/outlook on what is truly important in life to me have made this effort fruitful.

iv
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of variance

DBU Debre Berhan University

ETB Ethiopian birr

FRLM Full Range Leadership Model

HR Human resource

HRM Human resource management

JSS Job Satisfaction Survey

MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

PhD Doctor of Philosophy

SD Standard deviation

VIF Variance Inflation Factor

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i

APPROVAL SHEET – I................................................................................................................. ii

APPROVAL SHEET – II .............................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDICES .................................................................................. xi

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the Study ................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Background of the Study Area .......................................................................................... 3
1.3. Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 4
1.4. Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Objectives of the Study ..................................................................................................... 5
1.5.1. General objective .......................................................................................................... 5
1.5.2. Specific objectives ........................................................................................................ 6
1.6. Scopes of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
1.7. Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 6
1.8. Operational Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 8

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES .................................................................................... 8

2.1. Definition of Leadership ................................................................................................... 8
2.2. Leadership Theories .......................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Great Man theory ........................................................................................................ 10

vi
 2.2.2. Trait theory ................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.3. Behavioral leadership theories.................................................................................... 10
2.2.4. Contingency theories (Situational) ............................................................................. 12
2.2.5. Path – Goal leadership theory..................................................................................... 12
2.3. Leadership Styles ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1. Transformational leadership ....................................................................................... 14
2.3.2. Transactional leadership ............................................................................................. 16
2.3.3. Laissez-Faire leadership ............................................................................................. 18
2.4. Concepts and Definitions of Job Satisfaction ................................................................. 19
2.5. The Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction ................................ 24
2.6. Empirical Literature Review ........................................................................................... 25
2.7. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 27
2.8. Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 29

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 29
3.1. Research Design .............................................................................................................. 29
3.2. Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 30
3.3. Population and Sampling ................................................................................................ 30
3.4. Type of Data and Method of Collection.......................................................................... 32
3.5. Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 32
3.5.1. Model specification .................................................................................................... 32
3.5.2. Model diagnostic tests ................................................................................................ 33
3.6. Measurements .................................................................................................................. 35
3.7. Ethical Consideration ...................................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 37

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 37

4.1. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments ..................................................................... 37
4.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ........................................................... 38
4.3. Leadership Styles ............................................................................................................ 40
4.4. Employees’ Job Satisfaction ........................................................................................... 43

vii
 4.5. Relationships Between Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction ..................................... 44
4.5.1. Pearson’s correlation analysis .................................................................................... 45
4.5.2. Linear regression analysis .......................................................................................... 46
4.7. Effect of Demographics on Job Satisfaction ................................................................... 54

CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 59

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................... 59

5.1. Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................... 59
5.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 61
5.3. Recommendation for further Research............................................................................ 61

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 62

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 75

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3.1: Sample size distribution ......................................................................................................... 31

4.1: Reliability test for leadership styles and employees job satisfaction..................................... 37
4.2: Demographic distribution of respondents .............................................................................. 39
4.3: Scores of leadership behaviors in Debre Berhan University as perceived by employees ..... 41
4.4: Scores of employees’ job satisfaction in Debre Berhan University ...................................... 43
4.5: Directions and strengths of correlation coefficient values..................................................... 45
4.6: Correlation between leadership styles and job satisfaction ................................................... 45
4.7: Multi-collinearity test ............................................................................................................ 49
4.8: Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroscedasticity ................................................. 49
4.9: Summary of the regression model analysis ........................................................................... 50
4.10: Summary of regression ANOVA ......................................................................................... 50
4.11: Regression coefficient values of the variables to predict job satisfaction ........................... 51
4.12: Effect of demographics on employees job satisfaction ....................................................... 55

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2.1: Conceptual framework of the research. ................................................................................. 28

4.1: Linearity test .......................................................................................................................... 47
4.2: Frequency distribution of overall job satisfaction ................................................................. 48

x
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDICES

Appendix Table page

1: Two-sample t-test regarding effect of sex on job satisfaction .................................................. 81

2: Two-sample t-test regarding effect of marital status on job satisfaction .................................. 81
3: ANOVA result regarding effect of educational level on job satisfaction ................................. 82
4: ANOVA result regarding effect of age on job satisfaction ...................................................... 82
5: ANOVA result regarding effect of salary on job satisfaction .................................................. 82
6: ANOVA result regarding effect of work experience on job satisfaction ................................. 82

xi
 ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of leadership styles on job satisfaction in
Debre Berhan University. Descriptive and explanatory research designs were adopted. The
study employed a mixed approach. The questionnaires were distributed to 338 employees, and
316 were returned. Data analysis was done with the help of Stata 13 statistical software.
Descriptive statistics were employed to determine the type of leadership styles and level of
employees’ job satisfaction. Both Pearson’s correlation and multiple linear regression analyses
were used to examine the relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction. The
effects of demographics were analyzed using a two-sample t-test and ANOVA. The descriptive
statistics revealed that the leadership behavior adopted in the University was more
transformational than transactional and laissez-faire, where employees entertained ambivalent
levels of job satisfaction. Pearson’s correlation analyses showed both transformational and
transactional leadership positively related to job satisfaction, while laissez-faire was negatively
correlated with job satisfaction. Multiple regression analysis confirmed the positive influence of
the transformational leadership style on job satisfaction was more pronounced than
transactional, while laissez-faire leadership was more linked with dissatisfaction. Age, gender,
and marital status had no significant effect on job satisfaction whereas salary, work experience
and educational level significantly determined job satisfaction. To foster greater job
satisfaction, leaders should focus on intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration
than inspirational motivation of the transformational leadership behaviors, while put less
emphasis on laissez-faire leadership behavior.

Keywords: Job Satisfaction, Transformational Leadership Style, Transactional Leadership Style,

Laissez-faire Leadership Style

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

The success of any organization depends on the effective use of its resources such as human,
material, information and financial resources. For the achievement of organizational objectives,
employees are the most valuable assets in an organization and the key to success since
employees are the only rational creatures within the organization which convert input to output
or deliver services using other resources as a means (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Their skills, roles
and satisfaction at the place of work influence the competitive edge of the organization
(Schaufeli et al., 2008). Thus, taking the importance of human resources into account, it is
persistent to pay attention to factors improving human resources’ performance (Filimon Rezene,
2015). There are various factors that contribute to yielding various levels of performance by
various individuals under the various circumstances including their satisfaction, motivation,
behavior, and many other reasons (Arif and Chohan, 2012). Job satisfaction has a positive impact
on job performance and occupational commitment (Bakan et al., 2014). Similarly, Dawit et al.
(2017) stated that job satisfaction is one of the very most important factors which impact the
productivity of human resources. More recently, the study on the effect of job satisfaction on the
performance of administrative staffs in Addis Ababa University by Leyu Abebe (2019) showed
that job satisfaction and determinants of job satisfaction highly influenced employees’ work
performance.

Employee job satisfaction has been defined as a function of the perceived relationship between
what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it as offering (Portoghese et al., 2011). It
is an attitude that people have about their jobs and the organizations in which they perform these
jobs (Al-Zubi, 2010). Moreover, Akhila (2018) also confirmed that the rate of employee job
satisfaction is firmly connected to the accomplishment of the organizational goals. Hence, job
satisfaction is a key indicator of employees' motivation and the major determinant of
organizational achievement (Aarti et al., 2013). High levels of job satisfaction are associated
with reduced stress, higher empowerment, increased productivity, organizational development,
and increased motivation among employees (Sledge et al., 2008). Job satisfaction is also
1
associated with essential job attitudes, practices, meaningful outcomes, and organizational
effectiveness including organizational commitment, turnover, performance, and organizational
behavior (Sinclaire, 2011). Employees who are satisfied tend to be dedicated, productive, settled
in their jobs, being cooperative and good team player (Nidadhavolu, 2018), and become loyal
and committed to the organization (Aarti et al., 2013). It appears that individuals tend to
experience greater levels of job satisfaction when their abilities, values, and experiences can be
utilized in the working environment and when their expectations are met (Ruth W/Tensay,
2014).

Therefore, for employees to play their part effectively, it is important that they are satisfied,
motivated and managed in a way that enhances their level of engagement with the employer
(Schaufeli et al., 2008). Successful leaders design a healthy work environment that engages
employees to be successful in their work as well as encouraging them to remain in the
organization (Mends and Stander, 2011).

Various studies have examined the influence of leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in
various settings and agreed that job satisfaction is most likely affected by leadership style
(Hamidifar, 2010; Voon and Ayob, 2011; Riaz and Haider, 2013). As stated by numerous
researchers, leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2007; Rowe, 2007; Leonard et al., 2013). It involves a type
of responsibility desired at achieving particular ends by relating the available resources (human
and material) and ensuring a cohesive and coherent organization in the process (Ololube, 2013).

On the other hand, management with ineffective and detrimental leadership behavior, termed as
toxic, destructive, or tyrannical leadership, has an adverse effect, not only on the organization but
also on the well-being of the employees (Chukwura, 2017). Consequently, organizations need to
have capable leaders to lead and motivate their employees in their daily operations and
accomplish the organizational goal (Bass and Riggio, 2006).

According to Kippenberger (2002) leadership style is the style that a leader adopts in their
dealings with those who follow them. Effectiveness of leadership emanates from many factors
which are associated with the leaders themselves, followers and the situation etc. (Esubalew
Kassa, 2017). From a historical development perspective, Karadag (2015) advised numerous

2
approaches and theories to explain the nature of leadership, who states that each approach or
theory has brought about a different perspective in terms of the conceptualization of leadership.
The trait approach, behavioral approach, situational approach and contemporary approach
complement one another chronologically and are all valid in certain ways. Although many
various styles of leadership are developed, and number of studies have confirmed the effect of
leadership style on employees job satisfaction, there is no particular leadership style that can be
considered universal (Amanchukwu et al., 2015), and their effects on employees’ job satisfaction
are not the same in all organizations. This is the reason that the research is designed to assess the
existing leadership styles exhibited in Debre Berhan University and their corresponding
relationships with employees’ job satisfaction.

1.2. Background of the Study Area

Debre Berhan University, which is a 13-year-old university, is established in the 600 years old
historical town- Debre Berhan – a town situated in Amhara Region, North Shoa zone, 130 km
away from Addis Ababa in the north. The most influential explanation of the establishment of
the University is the government`s commitment towards the expansion of quality higher
education as well as ensuring a reasonable distribution of higher education in the country.

Based on these organizing explanations the foundation stone was put down on 9th May 2005 G.C
by her Excellency w/ro Genet Zewdie, the then Ministry of Minister of Education of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (DBU Annual Magazine, 2019/20).

Thereafter, the construction of the university was started on a total land area of 102 hectares,
which was given by the City Administration of Debre Berhan town. The initial intake capacity of
the university (in 2007 G.C.) was 725 students who joined into 5 departments with 68 instructors
and 7 administrative staffs. But today, the enrollment has significantly increased to around
29,304 regular, extension, distance and continuity and summer students who joined into 53
departments/programs under ten colleges 43 regular postgraduate and 2 Ph.D. programs (DBU
Annual Magazine, 2019/20).

Miraculously to its being young, the management fervently and zealously envisions to become
one of the best universities in Ethiopia by 2020 G.C. Hence, it is adamantly and unrelentingly
working and undertaking massive organizational activities in terms of human resource

3
development and construction with an overview to further enhancing its institutional capacity on
areas of producing competent graduates, conducting problem-solving research & offering
community service. Currently, the university is staffed with more than 1233 (first-degree to third
degree) academic staff and 1012 administrative staff and 168 technical assistants. By 2012
E.C/2020 G.C, the intake capacity of the university will have developed to 17,000 regular
academic trainees, and staff upgrading and employment will be achieved as planned (DBU
Human Resource Management directorate report, in February 2020).

1.3. Statement of the Problem

As the rate of employees’ job satisfaction is firmly connected to the accomplishment of the
organizational goals, an organization should have effective leadership traits to achieve its
objectives and to encourage the employees’ achievements. The growth of the institutions to the
expected rate has been disrupted due to the inconsistency in leadership as managers lacked the
essential leadership styles to lead towards their desired goals (Nidadhavolu, 2018). In a rapidly
changing world, in which the ongoing development of the potential of the workforce is
considered a prerequisite for remaining competitive, it is possible that leadership styles may fail
to meet the leadership challenges confronting most organizations today (Avolio and Bass, 2004).
The current diverse workforce is a significant challenge for leaders to manage. The leadership
strategies need to be developed based on research investigations, to better handle the workforce
in order to improve the performance of operations within an organization.

Although abundant researches have been made and several theories on leadership have been
produced, most of these studies focused on companies operating within a full-fledged
environment in developed countries. Particularly, the effect of various leadership styles on
employees' job satisfaction has also been researched across several years and decades worldwide
and exhibits that leadership styles have distinct control over employees’ job satisfaction. Though
some investigations on determinants of employee job satisfaction were conducted in Ethiopia by
Marco Asfaw (2016), Henok Tesfaye (2017) and Netsanet Fantahun (2017), they focused on
profit oriented businesses. Researches involving the relationship between leadership styles and
job satisfaction in public Universities in Ethiopia are still insignificant. Lack of researches can
made organizations unable to realize there is a meaningful relation between job satisfaction,

4
entrustment of power, and way of control and management, and the managers' effectiveness
(Afshinpour, 2014).

Although researches on influence of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction were made
by Hina Saleem (2014) and Leyu Abebe (2019) at public Universities of Ethiopia, the data
collected in the former was only from teachers, and the latter from administrative staffs. There is
a single research conducted in Selale University that considered both academic and
administrative staffs (Tesfaye Sinicho, 2019). However, as there is no particular leadership style
that can be considered universal (Amanchukwu et al., 2015), and the effects of leadership styles
on employees’ job satisfaction are not the same in all organizations, it is important to conduct a
research in this concern on an organization per se. Taking these ideas in view, the current study
is planned to assess the effect of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction in Debre
Berhan University.

1.4. Research Questions

In view of the aforementioned research gaps, this thesis was organized to answer the following
research questions:

1. What kind of leadership style is frequently practiced by leaders of the University?

2. To what degree employees of Debre Berhan University are satisfied with the existing
leadership?
3. Is there statistically a relationship between the three leadership styles (transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire) and employees’ job satisfaction?
4. To what extent do the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez-
faire) influence employees’ job satisfaction?
5. Do the employees’ demographic characteristics influence their job satisfaction under the
existing leadership in Debre Berhan University?
1.5. Objectives of the Study
1.5.1. General objective

The general objective of this research was to investigate the effect of leadership style on
employees’ job satisfaction at Debre Berhan University.

5
1.5.2. Specific objectives

 To assess the dominant leadership style frequently practiced by leaders of Debre Berhan
University.
 To measure the level of employees' job satisfaction in Debre Berhan University.
 To assess the relationship between the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire) and employees’ job satisfaction
 To examine the degrees to which the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire) influence employees’ job satisfaction.
 To evaluate the effects of employees’ demographic characteristics on job satisfaction under
the existing leadership in Debre Berhan University.

1.6. Scopes of the Study

The main focus of this study was to examine effect of leadership style on employees job
satisfaction with respect to Debre Berhan University. The geographical setting of the study was
Debre Berhan town because Debre Berhan University is located in the town. In addition, the
scope of this study was limited to the academic, administrative, and technical assistant of Debre
Berhan University. In order to make it manageable, other parties like temporal staffs, students,
associations and groups like security personnel were excluded in the study. Furthermore, the
study delimits on types of leadership style. The researcher focused only on transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles.

1.7. Significance of the Study

The significance of this study was to show how the leadership styles of administrators of Debre
Berhan University affect the level of employees’ job satisfaction. This research will generate
systematically and scientifically analyzed/organized information on how the leadership style of
Debre Berhan University is affecting employees so that it will help the management to identify
whether the current leadership style is effective or not.

For academic and other purposes: it will help to identify whether the existing leadership style is
different from other organizations. Helps for other organization to either to take and implement
the leadership style that Debre Berhan University is following, adjust or take a different direction

6
to fit to their level of organization. Moreover, the research output will also serve as a source of
information for further investigations and policymakers. Means to improve efficiencies of
leaders and areas that deserve further research are also identified.

1.8. Operational Definition of Terms

Leader: a person who manages or directs others (Collin, 2016).

Leadership: is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a

common goal (Northouse, 2016). It is a quality that enables a person to manage or administer
others (Collin, 2016).

Leadership Style: leadership style is the style a leader earnings in his or her interaction with
subordinates, towards influencing the attainment of organizational goals (Northouse, 2016).

Transformational leadership style: is a leadership behavior that involves initiation of changes

among employees. The leader undertakes to instill a culture of improvement as well as the
willingness to submit to leadership. This leadership style also involves a direct relationship
between the leader and employees where the former evaluates the drivers of the employees
“satisfy their needs and value them” (Bryant, 2013).

Transactional leadership style: This kind of leadership strategy is based on the postulate that
“people are motivated by reward and punishment” (Straker, 2010). In this style, the leader
outlines expected duties and performances of the led group and punishment or appreciations
provided depending on whether the employees attain the expectations or not (Fennell, 2012).

Laissez-Faire Leadership style: This kind of leadership behavior is displayed when a leader
chooses not to guide performance and employees are given freedom to operate without influence
of a leader, when the condition would usually demand that he or she do so.

Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction refers to the desire derived while doing a job (Haque and
Aston, 2016).

7
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

This chapter consists of both theoretical and empirical literature reviews related to the effect of
leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction, which is expected to provide comprehensive
knowledge or information concerning the subject. The theoretical review includes an overview
of leadership and its definitions, leadership theories, concepts of leadership styles and their
relationship with job satisfaction. On the other hand, an empirical review of the study will
examine the relationship between leadership styles and employees' job satisfaction as stated by
various researchers.

2.1. Definition of Leadership

Leadership can be defined as a process through which a person (leader) provides guidance,
motivation, support, encouragement and assistance to others (followers), have their trust and
confidence in return and leads them towards some commonly shared objectives without
compulsion. On the basis of this definition, leadership is different from just being a boss, as
employees of a boss have compulsion to follow his or her, while employees of a leader follow
him or her with their own free will. Various scholars defined leadership in different ways based
on their own understanding (Northouse, 2016). Therefore, there is no consensus on the definition
of leadership yet. However, most of the description commonly agreed upon has similar terms and
meanings. Some recent definitions of leadership with common notion are discoursed below:

Leadership is a process by which an individual attempt to influence other team members to

achieve team goals. Loganathan (2015) viewed leadership `as a process which people use to
bring out the best in themselves and others. Leslie et al, (2013) asserts that leadership is the
ability to influence people to willingly follow one’s guidance or adhere to one’s decisions.
Leadership is also defined as a course of action by which a person influences others to realize
objective and direct organization in a way that makes it more organized, solid and consistent way
(Kumari, 2011). This definition also comprises of the word process, influence and group of
peoples which are common to all the definitions of leadership. House (2015) involved motivation
in the concept of leadership and defined leadership as the ability of a person to motivate,

8
influence and help workers to contribute effectively and efficiently towards the success of the
organization.

According to Northouse (2013) leadership is defined as a process where an individual supervises

and influence a group of individuals towards accomplishing a common goal. The “process” in
the context of this definition refers to the exchange between the followers and the leaders.
Influence is one of the critical components of leadership and without influence, leadership cannot
exist. In Sundi (2013), leadership is the ability to convince and mobilize others to work together
as a team under his leadership to achieve a certain goal. Memon (2014) defined leadership as
process by which an individual influences the thoughts, attitudes and behaviors of others by
taking responsibility for setting way for the firm, others to see and visualize what lies ahead and
figure out how to archive it. Similarly, Khan et al. (2012) stated that leadership is a new way that
creates a new vision within an organization by increase self confidence in employee perception
through coordination and communication.

Basically, leadership is a social influence process in which the leader seeks the voluntary
participation of subordinates in an effort to reach organization goals, a process whereby one
person exerts social influence over other members of the group, a process of influencing the
events of an individual or a group of individuals in an effort towards goal achievement in a given
situations, and a relational concept involving both the influencing agent and the person being
influenced (Bhatti et al., 2012).

2.2. Leadership Theories

Researchers in the field of leadership have developed several theories to advance the
understanding of the concept of leadership. Exploring the different leadership theories offers
knowledge in examining the relationship between leadership styles and likelihood to stay with a
company. This subsection of the literature review includes relevant studies related to leadership
theories. The growing interest of scholars and practitioners in developing new management
theories has led to the emergence of a variety of leadership theories (Zhang et al., 2012).
Although more than 44 leadership theories exist (Kellerman, 2012), based on the scope of the
research this review has focused on the evolutionary approaches to leadership are categorized as
those that are traditional (great man, trait, behavioral, contingency, Path-Goal) and those that

9
center on new approaches to leadership (transactional ,transformational and laissez-faire
leadership) (Robbins, 2010).

2.2.1. Great Man theory

The Great Man theory indicated that leaders have unique qualities through great men. The theory
asserted that leaders are innate, not made. In 18th and 19th century philosophers focused on great
men rather than on situations. Bolden et al. (2011) suggested that effective past leaders usually
male were considered to have achieved their success through possession of a range of
distinguishing characteristics and qualities that made them “born to lead”. In general, this theory
ignores the leadership capacity of women and the past achievements of an organization, and
magnifies the greatness of executives in the organization. In other words, the theory infers that
the success of an organization depends entirely on the greatness of its executives (Ghose, 2014).

2.2.2. Trait theory

Trait theories of human behavior emerged in ancient Greece, India and China around 2,500 years
ago. According to Leonard et al. (2013) personal qualities and traits that distinguished leaders
from followers, the underlying premise being that leadership is inborn, rather than learned. The
short coming of this theory is that the situation was not taken into account. Moreover, Wiza and
Hlanganipai (2014) stated that the trait approach concentrates on the qualities of the individual as
essential and universal aspects of leadership regardless of diverse contexts. And also the writers
suggested that leadership is seen as almost equivalent to personality and cannot therefore be
taught. This theory is mostly psychological in approach. Likewise the sociological approach,
frame leadership in terms of relationships among people rather than individual traits or
characteristics and concentrate on power and dominance (Gill, 2011).

2.2.3. Behavioral leadership theories

The fundamental difference between trait theories and behavioral theories are based on the fact
that trait theories maintain that leaders are born and cannot be created whereas behavioral
theories, on the contrary, maintain that leaders can be created by mimicking the leadership
behavior of successful leaders (Robbins, 2010). The behavioral approach towards understanding

10
leadership is basically encompassed by the findings of two studies, which were conducted
independently, but at the same time, at the Ohio State University and University of Michigan.

During the research conducted in the University of Michigan, researchers identified two
dimensions of leadership behavior, which they deemed to be sufficient for effective leadership.
These dimensions of leadership were named employee-oriented leadership and production or
task-oriented leadership (Northouse, 2016). Employee-oriented leadership merely referred to
leaders who take personal interest in their employees and don’t just see them as a means to an
end (Northouse, 2016). These types of leaders promote interpersonal relationships between
themselves and their employees. Production-oriented leaders, on the other hand, are more
interested in harnessing the efforts of their employees in attaining set goals without giving any
thought towards the needs and feelings of their employees regarding their job. In the production-
oriented leadership style, employers basically consider their employees as a means to an end. In
this study, researchers understood that the employee-oriented leadership style is more effective
in increasing productivity and job satisfaction among employees. The production-oriented
leadership style on the other hand, seems to decrease productivity as well as job satisfaction
(Robbins et al., 2010).

The research in Ohio State University identified two leadership dimensions that accounted for
most of the leadership behaviors described by employees. These two dimensions, or leadership
styles, were called Initiating Structure and Consideration-Oriented leadership. The initiating
structure dimension, relates to leaders that define and structure the role of their employees in
order to attain a set goal. The consideration dimension refers to leaders that facilitate team
interaction, and who put emphasis on the relationship between themselves and their employees,
in terms of trust and respect (Bartolo and Furlonger, 2014).

In many ways the studies performed at the Michigan and Ohio State University can be seen to
have yielded the same results. The Initiating Structure dimension as proposed by researchers at
the Ohio State University is similar to that of the Production-Oriented dimension which was
proposed by researchers at the University of Michigan. Likewise, the Consideration-Oriented
dimension researched at the Ohio State University is similar to the Employee-Oriented
dimension researched by the University of Michigan. Many experts in the field of leadership

11
studies also refer to the initiation structure and consideration-oriented leadership styles as task-
oriented and employee-oriented leadership, respectively (Iqbal, 2011). The fundamental
difference between the two studies, however, is that researchers at the Ohio State University are
of the opinion that effective leadership is only attainable if a combination of initiation structure
and consideration-oriented leadership are employed. Researchers at the University of Michigan,
however, are of the view that effective leadership is attainable by employing employee-oriented
and production-oriented leadership independently of each other (Robbins et al., 2010).

2.2.4. Contingency theories (Situational)

The contingency theory suggests that what makes an effective leader depends on the condition.
House (1971) made mention of the contingency theory that identifies four leadership behaviors,
namely, directive leaders, supportive leaders, participative leaders, and achievement-oriented
leaders. The situational approach explains how leaders can be matched to suitable situations,
which is intended to improve on the trait and behavioral approaches. Mullins (2010) believed
that the situational approach focuses on the significance of the situation, as a paramount feature
of ineffective leadership in conjunction with the leader and the subordinate. Northouse (2013)
stated that contingency theory is a influential leadership based on harmony among the leadership
style, time and setting. The reason that it is termed contingency theory stems from the attempt to
adjust leadership styles according to the present situation and the description of this adjustment.
Moreover, contingency theory compels leadership style either task or relationship-oriented with
levels of control in the conditional itself that serves to inform leaders behavior. This model of
leadership suggests that leaders who tend to be relationship-oriented are more effective in
situations that are under control (Salami, 2012).

2.2.5. Path – Goal leadership theory

Leaders that lead by means of a Path-Goal leadership style reward and encourage their followers
for goal achievement and also provide their followers with the necessary direction, clarity and
assistance with the elimination of obstacles in order for them to attain their goals (Dixon and
Hart, 2010). House (2015) identified four leadership styles namely directive, supportive,
participative and achievement-orientated leadership. The directive leader is a type of leader that
schedules the tasks of the followers. Directive leaders also provide guidance to the followers and

12
let them know exactly what is expected from them. Supportive leaders aim to show concern for
the needs of the followers by means of friendly interaction. Participative leaders use collective
decision making by consulting the followers and using their suggestions before making any
decisions. Achievement-oriented leaders expect the followers to perform at their highest level by
setting goals for them to reach (House, 2015).

2.3. Leadership Styles

As leadership issues are vital for organizational success, the past 50 years have witnessed
extensive international research in the field of leadership (Yahaya, 2016). To this end, leadership
styles have become an important topic of study and many researchers consider leadership style as
an important variable in influencing how members of an organization function (Wu, 2009),
which leads to the development of various leadership styles through time viz. autocratic,
administrative, charismatic, democratic, cooperative, situational, functional, transformational,
transactional, relationship-oriented styles etc. There is a consensus among scholars (Andrews et
al., 2011; Bennett, 2009; Furtner et al., 2012; Ghorbanian et al., 2012; Long and Thean, 2011;
Mahmood et al., 2012; Sadeghi and Pihie, 2012) that transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership styles are the most commonly practiced leaderships in today’s organizations.
This is the reason that the current research focused on the three leadership styles.

According to Burns (1978), two types of leadership such as transactional and transformational,
were basically considered, the latest being defined as a process in which leaders and followers
raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation. Later, in 1985, Bass extended the
theory and offered an integrative theory of organizational leadership, called “The full range
leadership theory” (Bass and Avolio, 1994).

The full range of leadership is a general leadership theory focusing on the behavior of leaders
towards the workforce in different work situations. The model relates transactional and
transformational leadership style with laissez-faire leadership. However, Bass and Avolio (1991)
introduced the idea that distinguishes these leadership styles. It sorted according to a leader’s
engagement towards his or her team. This theory was organized around two axes: degree of
activity and degree of effectiveness. The activity axis is concerned with how active or passive the
leader is in his or her way of being towards others and towards the aims and goals of the

13
organization. Basically this alliance concerns the leader’s level of engagement and involvement
in the leadership process. On the other hand, the effectiveness alliance concerns the effect the
specific leadership style on the follower group and organizational outcomes such as
performance, internal motivation and wellbeing.

According to Bass and Avolio (1994), the full range leadership theory comprises nine factors
reflecting three broad classes of behavior: transformational leadership, with five distinct factors
namely: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behaviors), inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration; transactional leadership
with three factors: contingent reward, management by exception-active and management-by-
exception-passive, and laissez-faire (passive-avoidant).

2.3.1. Transformational leadership

One of the current approaches of leadership that has been the focus of much research since early
1980s is the transformational leadership theory (Northouse, 2016). According to Jacobsen
(2013), the transformational leadership style is pronounced as a process where the leaders
motivate and transform the followers usually by raising the awareness of the followers on the
organizational values. Transformational leaders are mature enough to motivate attitude
adjustments and understand core values, while at the same time convincing employees to reach
for higher achievements and self-development. Employees armed with the skills as high
achievers and self-development are high performing, self-developing employees that help build a
profitable organization (Mittal, 2015; Northouse, 2015). Northouse (2013) added that
transformational leadership is a process whereby a leader relates to others and creates a
connection that raises the level of motivation in both the leaders and the followers. This style of
leadership pay attention to the followers’ need and support them in other to make the subordinate
reach the maximum potential (Adekunle, 2017). The transformational view is looking for
potential motivations in disciples and its objective is to attract the attention of disciples towards
the superior, total needs of the group (Bushra Fatima, 2011).

Research findings disclosed that transformational leaders encourage followers to look beyond
own self-interest. In addition, the transformational leader strives to achieve organizational goals,
set clear goals, and reach for high expectations (Antonakis, 2012; Bushra et al., 2011; Money,

14
2011; Northouse, 2013). In addition, authors concluded that transformational leadership has
more in common with transactional leadership than laissez-faire leadership (Antonakis, 2012;
Northouse, 2013). There are four components of transformational leadership such as idealized
influence (of two types, attributed and behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individual consideration.

i. Idealized influence

Idealized influence refers to leaders’ actions that make group values and goals salient. The leader
encourages cooperation and teamwork by instilling in followers a desire to work towards
common goals (Saboe et al., 2015). Furthermore, it refers to the followers' view at the leader in
terms of power, charisma, self-confidence, trust, consistency, and ideals to influence his
followers, in which individuals make efforts to imitate and respect (Omar and Hussin, 2013).
The leaders tend to possess a high moral standard and ethical conduct, and they perceive their
followers to possess exceptional capabilities, determination, and persistence (Adekunle, 2017).

ii. Inspirational motivation

The inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership refers to the leaders

inspiring the followers through motivation. Team spirit is highly developed in this groups which
committed to organizational goal. Transformational leaders in inspirational motivation
communicate with a clear vision of the possible future with their followers and tend to join
organizational and personal goals together (Gill, 2011). The transformational leaders tend to
behave inspirational motivation so they can motivate and inspire the followers around them by
explaining sense and elaborating the challenge to people around them (Bodla and Nawaz, 2010).
This component also involves creating “attractive future states” (Metwally et al., 2014).

iii. Intellectual stimulation

Intellectual stimulation deals with increasing awareness and interest of workers in an

organization; usually about the challenges as well as advancing their capabilities to offer
solutions. The leaders tend to instigate the workers to be involved in creative and innovation
processes to confront challenges by thinking “out of the box” and coming up with an ideal
solution (Adekunle, 2017). However, the followers are fully aware of the ethical standards when

15
dealing with various challenges, and the leaders also encourage them to follow the ethical
standards (Lo et al., 2011). Intellectual stimulation in leadership is the more ever ability of a
leader to keep his followers thinking about the present tasks. On the base of their understandings,
they announce creative ideas to solve problems (Omar and Hussin, 2013).

iv. Individual consideration

This component of the transformational leadership style is mostly concerned with the needs of
the follower or employees to the need of the organization. This is considered when a leader
coaches and mentors, while trying to assist each follower in achieving the fullest potential
possible (Northouse, 2013). The leaders encourage the followers to work harder and often act as
a role model to the followers. The leaders give the followers a great deal of attention and
sometimes help them to go through personal challenges to help them reach their maximum
potentials. The leader monitors the progress of the followers. However, the followers do not have
the pressure of being supervised or monitored. The monitoring is usually more systematic and
outcomes in better results (Arzi and Farahbod, 2014).

2.3.2. Transactional leadership

Transactional leaders and leadership are concerned with the exchange of things of value between
the leaders and leadership and the followers to advance leaders and the leadership and followers’
program (Northouse, 2013). Transactional leadership, also known as managerial leadership, is all
about managing others using rewards and punishments. Therefore, in this leadership, leaders
interact with their subordinates and carefully explain how a task is expected to be completed as
well the rewards associated with the completion of the task (Arzi and Farahbod, 2014).

People with this leadership style tend to prefer a great contract of structure with clearly defined
roles and expectations (Cherry, 2017). The traits of transactional leaders are those who value
order and structure, likely to command military operation, manage a higher scale of teams or
groups that need the assistance of rules and regulations to achieve organizational goals on time
or move people and supplies in an organized way. However, the organization values the idea of
creativity and innovation might found transactional leaders hardly to meet their requirements
(Spahr, 2016). Transactional leadership depends on theoretical backing and subordinates are

16
inspired through response or else rectified through discipline because of this trade relationship,
the normal execution accomplishment drives towards devotee's advancement (Munaf, 2011).

According to Yukl (2011) transactional leadership seeks to "raise the consciousness of the
followers by appealing to the principles and moral values rather than to materialistic desires or
negative emotions". Based on agreement to involve followers in the process (activities) towards
the organization to achieving common goals and returns distinguishes transformation leadership
from other earlier and contemporary theories (Afshinpour, 2014). The leader motivates, inspires
and transforms followers to perform while transcending self-interest for the betterment of the
organization (Samad et al., 2015).

A study found that employees tend to endure the transactional leadership style for a short
duration due to the reward and punishment aspects associated with it (Saleem, 2015). Three
dimensions of transactional leadership have been identified viz. contingent rewards, management
by exception (active), and management by exception (passive) (Northouse, 2013; Arzi, 2014).

i. Contingent Rewards

Contingent reward is a leadership behavior by which the leader focuses on setting work objective
and performance standards, providing feedback, and providing financial or psychological
rewards in exchange for performance that meets expectations (Gill, 2011). Contingent reward
leadership refers to leader behaviours focused on clarifying role and task requirements and
providing followers with material or psychological rewards contingent on the fulfilment of
contractual obligations (Bodla and Nawaz, 2010). Hence, it involves the leader of an
organization obtaining a followers agreement that includes what needs to be done and the
rewards attached to the satisfactory completion of the task (Adekunle, 2017).

ii. Management by Exception-Active

Management by Exception-Active entails the leader watches and searches aggressively for
deviations from rules and standards to avoid the deviations. However, corrective actions must be
taken (Timothy et al., 2011). Usually, this dimension looks for mistakes and enforces rules to
avoid mistakes (Northouse, 2013). It takes the notice of not obeying rules and regulations and
takes the action for correction. The leader fallows their followers to work on the mission and

17
does not interfere unless goals are not being achieved at a proper time and reasonable cost
(Chaudhry and Javed, 2012).

iii. Management-by-exception-passive

Management-by-exception-passive intervening only occurs after errors have been detected or if

standards have not been met. An even more passive approach is laissez-faire, which is defined as
the absence of leadership (Timothy et al., 2011). These leaders wait for concerns to come up
before fixing the problems. Management by exception passive is ideal when a leader is
supervising a large number of subordinates (Northouse, 2013). This often involves a reprimand
of the followers or negative feedback since the leader is only interested in the errors made and
deviations from the standard performance while no credits are given for a good and outstanding
performance (Adekunle, 2017). With transactional leadership being applied to the lower-level
needs and being more managerial in style, it is a basis for transformational leadership which
applies to higher-level needs (James and Ogbonna, 2013).

2.3.3. Laissez-Faire leadership

The term laissez-faire means passive-avoidant (Bennett, 2011). This terminology reflects the
depiction of a laissez-faire leader as one who avoids involvement when important issues arrive,
is absent when needed, avoids making decisions, and delays responding to urgent questions
(Yueh et al., 2010; Sadeghi and Pihie, 2012). A laissez-faire leader is one who assumes no
responsibility, delays decisions, and makes little effort to understand and satisfy followers’ needs
(Bennett, 2011). Supervisors who are purely laissez-faire leaders should seek to combine that
leadership style with transformational and transactional leadership styles to increase the positive
outcome on job satisfaction (Sadeghi and Pihie, 2012).

Chaudhry and Javed (2012) stated that laissez-faire leaders normally will pull themselves out and
zero interference in any decision making process. Most of the time, this type of leadership
endorsed followers that they have authority to get their call for any decisions about the
assignment. Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegate’s leadership, in which leaders are
hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions. Therefore, this is considered the most
passive component and the least real form of leaders behaviour (Khan et al., 2011), which leads

18
to the lowest productivity among group members (Cherry, 2016). Yukl (2013) reasoned because
effective leaders inspire group interactions and affect employees behaviors to achieve
organizational goals, but laissez-faire leaders do not offer any assistance to employees; rather,
they employ people with experience, good education, and strong skills who are ambitious and
driven to succeed, have a track record of achievement on specific projects, and who are
comfortable performing tasks with little or no guidance (Gill, 2011).

2.4. Concepts and Definitions of Job Satisfaction

The subject of job satisfaction is a widely researched field, which is also a complex
phenomenon, and therefore there exist numerous definitions of the concept. It is believed that
considering various aspects that affect the job including rewards and remuneration, social
environments and the nature of the job itself, provide a clear picture of job satisfaction because
workers experience varying levels of job satisfaction concerning the job aspects (Spector, 2014).

The most commonly used definition of job satisfaction is drawn by Locke (1976), which stated
job satisfaction as a pleasurable or desired emotional state that results from the positive appraisal
of one's job or the experience from the job. Some scholars also defined job satisfaction as the
general attitude of employees which is constituted by their reaction towards the working
conditions, wages, and promotion opportunities in relation to the job, social interactions to other
employees, and recognition and appreciations of talents (Li and Hung, 2010).

Job satisfaction is described as the integral factor that explains the perspective that an employee
shows toward the environment in relation to the mental change for individual job satisfaction of
employee (Robbins and Judge, 2010). More so the difference factor explains job satisfaction in
terms of rewards. It expresses job satisfaction as the difference between the predictable rewards
from the employers to the actual reward obtained from the employer. It means that if the
expected reward is higher than the actual reward then job satisfaction increases (Siddika, 2012).
Job satisfaction is also described as the feelings of employees towards their job. It is a perception
of employees about how the job provides those things that are important for them like benefits,
promotional opportunities, supervision, coworkers, working conditions, and the work itself. Job
satisfaction has emotional, cognitive and behavioural components. The emotional component
refers to feelings regarding the job, such as boredom, anxiety, or excitement. The cognitive

19
component of job satisfaction refers to beliefs regarding one's job, for example, feeling that one's
job is mentally demanding and challenging. Finally, the behavioural component includes
people's actions in relation to their work. These actions may contain being tardy, staying late, or
pretending to be ill in order to avoid work (Ahmed et al., 2010).

According to Mullins (2010) there is some doubt whether job satisfaction consists of a single
dimension or a number of separate dimensions, as the level of job satisfaction may be affected by
a wide range of variables relating to employees themselves (e.g. demographic), organizational or
environmental factors.

Demographic factors can affect the level of job satisfaction of employees and may include: age,
gender, marital status, number of dependents, educational attainment, occupational level and
tenure. On the other hand, organizational or work environment factors, can also affect the level
of job satisfaction and are determined by conditions that are beyond the control of the employee.
The organizational or work environment factors include the pay and benefits, nature of work,
promotion opportunities, supervision, co-workers, working conditions, contingent rewards and
communication. To this end, Spector (1997) developed job satisfaction survey that has nine
subscales to measure employees’ satisfaction: Pay, promotion, supervision, benefits, contingent
rewards, working condition, coworkers, nature of work and communication, which are
applicable specifically to human service, public and nonprofit organizations.

i. Pay

Pay refers to the amount of financial compensation that an individual receives as well as the
degree to which such compensation is perceived to be equitable. Remuneration and earnings are
a cognitively complex and multidimensional influences in job satisfaction. Dessler (2012)
indicated that employees pay contains all compensation factors which are given to him against
his work. Heery and Noon (2012) defined pay through a number of components like basic salary,
benefits, bonuses, pay for doing extra work and incentives. Pay is therefore what an employee
receives against his work after fulfilling his assigned duty. This usually contains all types of
financial and non-financial rewards. Lai (2011) described that pay is one of those satisfying
variables which if hindered reduces the dissatisfaction level of employees. If an employee is

20
compensated according to his need, he will simply manage overload work if any emergency
occurs.

ii. Promotion

Promotional opportunities seem to have a varying effect on job satisfaction. This is because
promotions take some different forms and have a diversity of accompanying rewards. In current
years, the flattening of organizations and accompanying empowerment strategies, promotion in
the traditional sense of climbing the hierarchical corporate ladder of success is no longer
available as it once was. According to Singh and Jain (2013), promotion determines the amount
of satisfaction of employees. This indicates the great importance of promotion for satisfaction of
employee. Promotion has a significant effect on employee satisfaction. There is therefore a
positive relationship between job satisfaction and opportunity to grow (Ramasodi, 2010).

iii. Supervision

The nature of the supervision provided can also have a significant impact on job satisfaction
(Mullins, 2010; Sharaf et al., 2018). Employee satisfaction increases when the immediate
supervisor is understanding, friendly, supportive, offers praise for good performance, listens to
their feelings and ideas, meets the higher order needs, encourages involvement in the decision
making process and displays personal interest in them, which in return enhances their feeling of
control and achievement (Robbins, 2010).

iv. Fringe benefits

According to Doyle (2016) employee benefits are optional, non-wage compensation provided to
employees in addition to their normal wages or salaries. These types of benefits may include
group insurance (health, dental, vision, life etc.), disability income protection, retirement
benefits, daycare, tuition reimbursement, sick leave, vacation (paid and non-paid), funding of
education as well as flexible and alternative work arrangements typically indirect, non-cash
support given to an employee. Benefit is a generic word used to describe the components of a
substantial element of the whole remuneration provided by employing organizations to their
work forces, which usually is provided in non-cash form. However, in recent years 'benefit' has

21
superseded 'fringe benefit' and is used as the word to encompass the wide range of benefits in
kind in addition to cash payments which companies provide for their employees (White and
Drucker, 2015). Employee benefit packages can be extremely effective in attracting, motivating,
satisfying, and retaining employees (Durst and DeSantis, 2015).

v. Contingent rewards

Employee award and acknowledgment is not just a pleasant gesture to do for employees, which
in reality is a message instrument that strengthens and rewards the most significant outcomes
people produce for their organization and it also provide a source of job satisfaction to the
employees. When one can distinguish employees efficiently, one strengthens, with the
individually selected means of gratitude, the performance and behaviors who most desire to see
employees do again. An effectual worker credit structure is simple, instant, and tremendously
supporting (John et al., 2010; Mullins, 2010). This stands for appreciation, recognition and
rewards for fitting work done by the subordinates. However, when employees feel that they are
not rewarded according to their contributions, they are more likely to be dissatisfied leading to
low commitment thereby low productivity (Lumley et al., 2011).

vi. Working conditions

Every worker prefers working situations resulting in a better physical convenience and comfort.
Factors such as the temperature of the workplace, lightning, hygiene, noise, resources, and
ventilation are parts of the working condition (Swatee and Srivastava, 2012).

Greenberg and Baron (2013) highlighted that the absence of desirable working condition could
affect negatively the mental and physical fitness. Workers whose jobs are mentally and
physically demanding will not be inspired to work if the working conditions are poor. Robbins
and Judge (2010) suggested that a good working condition will significantly affect job
satisfaction. Edvardsson and Glanz (2012) carried out research on a new service development
and found that the work environment requirements are significant factors essential to achieving
success when designing and implementing services. In addition, Saltzstein et al. (2013) carried
out research using the survey of federal government workers. The study aimed to find the

22
 discrepancies among in how friendly workplace affects job satisfaction. The result showed that
compressed work schedule apparently reduced the level of job satisfaction.

vii. Coworker

This refers to the type and quality of interaction and relationship that employees experienced
with their co-workers and immediate supervisors. An increasingly significant issue affecting job
satisfaction and efficiency is the nature of the work environment and workplace facilities
(Mullins, 2010). The author, for example, argues that an inspirational workplace will result in
inspired workers and attractions attention to the importance for work performance of the
atmosphere, quality and style of building and offices. In support, Spector (2008) argues that if an
individual’s co-workers are kind and supportive to each other, the more the employees are
satisfied. Even if the employees did not like their work, they enjoy their work life because of the
fact that they like their colleagues.

viii. Nature of work

According to Sharma and Bhaskar (2017) postulate that the single most important influence on a
person’s job satisfaction experience comes from the nature of the work assigned to him/ her by
the organization. They claim that if the job entails adequate variety, challenge, discretion and
scope for using one’s own abilities and skills, the employees doing the job is likely to experience
job satisfaction. Khaleque and Choudhary (2013) found in their study on Indian managers, that
the nature of work was the most important factor in determining job satisfaction for the top
managers, and job security as the most significant factor in job satisfaction for managers at the
bottom.

ix. Communication

According to Robbins (2010) communication can be defined as an “informing of information

process” (verbally or in written), used by leaders to all employees, as well as the listening
process whereby leaders listen to employees’ problems and accept advice from all members of
the organization. A growing body of evidence suggests that employees’ satisfaction and their
identification with their organization are critically dependent on effective communication. This

23
evidence has moved internal communications to the center of the progressive organization’s
strategy. In addition, organizations and their communication personnel have recognized that
effective communication relates directly to the employees’ ability, motivation and commitment
on the job (Spector, 2008).

2.5. The Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction

An earlier study by Griffin et al. (2001) maintained that employee consideration and intellectual
stimulation leadership behavior are positively related to employee job satisfaction. However,
Bartolo and Furlonger (2000) also found that a change in the level of leadership support was a
significant predictor of changes in the level of employees’ job satisfaction; this is because a team
leader is expected to have a certain influence and control in the job structure, work allocation,
etc. Furthermore, a competent leader can make use of effective rewards, praise and recognition,
effort through job re-design, job enrichment or other strategies for improving employees’
satisfaction. Finally, an effective leader can create and maintain a good working environment in
a team. The reactions of employees to their leaders usually depend on the characteristics of the
employees as well as the characteristics of the leaders. Employee job satisfaction is influenced
by the internal organization environment, which comprises organizational climate, leadership
types along with personnel relationships. The quality of the leader-employee relationship or the
lack thereof - has a great influence on the employee’s self-esteem and job satisfaction (Mullins,
2007).

Gumusluoglu et al. (2009) argued that it is stressful for employees to work by means of a leader
who has a hostile and unsupportive behavior. If employees are not capable of figuring out how to
perform the work by themselves they will prefer a leader who will offer adequate guidance and
instructions. Negative leader-employee relations reduce productivity as well as increase
absenteeism and the turnover to the organization can be quite high. A study conducted by Razi et
al. (2013) at Islamic Azad University revealed that there was strong relationship between
leadership style sub-variables and factors of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was positively
related to transformational and transactional leadership styles, while it was negatively related to
laissez-faire leadership. Hamidifar (2009) also conducted a research in the same university and
confirmed that each leadership style affects employees job satisfaction in different ways. This

24
research showed the sub variables of transformational leadership positively influenced all job
satisfaction factors. However, laissez-faire leadership style showed negative relationship with job
satisfaction.

Glisson and Durick (2000) argued based on the results of the studies that examined leadership
and its relationship to employees job satisfaction in public service organizations that leadership
is an important factor in creating a positive organizational environment conducive to high morale
and commitment. Furthermore, they found that leadership to be significantly associated with
social workers’ job satisfaction. They further argue that, of the different dimensions of job
satisfaction such as work, recognition, working conditions and co-workers, most can be
influenced by or are related to leadership behaviors. Some studies have argued that neither
transactional nor transformational leadership styles are capable of increasing employee
motivation and satisfaction level. Epitropaki and Martin (2005b) recommended that employees
prefer the inspiration and consideration aspects of transformational leadership. Furthermore,
employees also favor the contingent rewards aspect of transactional leadership. On the contrary,
some studies have found that both the leadership styles positively affect employees job and
career satisfaction (Jansen et al., 2009). Epitropaki and Martin (2005a) found that effectiveness
of transactional and transformational leadership styles varies from one condition and industry to
another.

2.6. Empirical Literature Review

A number of researches have been conducted to determine the effect of leadership style on job
satisfaction in various organizations throughout the world. Although little discrepancies among
reports have been shown, many studies confirmed that leadership has a significant role to play in
how workers are satisfied with their jobs.

The existence of strong relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction was reported in
a study carried out to evaluate the impact of principals/directors’ leadership styles on job
satisfaction of the faculty members (N = 287) in a public university of Punjab, Pakistan (Amin et
al., 2013). A study to investigate if the transformational leadership is more effective than
transactional leadership in enhancing job satisfaction among employees working in a 5-star hotel
in Turkey by Kara et al. (2013) revealed that the transformational leadership style was positively

25
correlated to job satisfaction and the employees preferred leaders who adopt the transformational
style over the transactional. Similarly, Rothfelder et al. (2012) investigated the impact of
transformational, transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in the
German tourism and hospitality industry. The findings from the research revealed that the
leadership styles have a significant effect on the level of job satisfaction and the employees’
favored the transformational style of leadership. A study by Braun et al. (2013) that considered
Herzberg’s et al. (1959) motivation factors as the conceptual framework, involved 360 university
employees and immediate supervisors of 36 teams, disclosed positive relationships of team
perceptions when supervisors were transformational leaders aiming to increase job satisfaction,
and teams supervised by transformational leaders achieved higher levels of performance. A study
by Balgobind (2002) aimed at determining the effect of transformational leadership behaviour of
leaders on employee’s job satisfaction in a steel and miming company in South Africa. The study
was exploratory and used a random sample of 126 out of 3589 employees. The MLQ to measure
transformational leadership behaviour and JSS to measure employees’ job satisfaction were used.
The results indicated that there was a significant effect of transformational leadership behaviours
of leaders on employees’ job satisfaction, more specifically, in terms of fringe benefits and pay
dimensions of job satisfaction. Similarly, a study in public sector organizations in Malaysia
showed leadership style has a stronger relationship with job satisfaction suggesting
transformational leadership deemed suitable for managing government organizations (Voon et
al., 2011).

Transactional leaders concentrated more on job success rather than job satisfaction (Riaz and
Haider, 2010). According to Handsome (2009), transactional leadership style has a negative
relationship with job satisfaction.

In Ethiopia, the effects of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction were assessed in
Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) (N = 44; Fasika Yalew, 2016), Heineken
brewery SC. (N = 210; Bezawit Mulugeta, 2017), Salale University (N = 225; Tesfaye Sinicho,
2019) and Jima University specialized hospital (Nebiat and Asresash, 2013). The findings from
these researches indicated that leadership styles have a significant effect on the level of job
satisfaction and in many cases employees preferred the transformational leadership.

26
However, as reported by Omar and Hussin (2013) leadership was insignificant mediator in the
relationships between charismatic, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration with
job satisfaction. Another study that was conducted in leather companies to determine the effect
of transformational leadership styles on job satisfaction indicated that only two transformational
leadership dimensions (idealized influence and individualized consideration) had significant
effects on job satisfaction of employees (Bekele Shibru, 2011). Non-significant relationship
between transformational leadership and intrinsic job satisfaction was reported in a study to
evaluate effect of leadership styles of head departments of College of Education, Addis Ababa
University on job satisfaction of academic staffs, while there was significant relationship
between transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles and job satisfaction (Fikadu, 2010).
Chaudhry and Husnain (2012) conducted an investigation using a mixed method approach with
278 banking employees with a demographics of 63 entry employees, 193 middle-level managers,
and 22 top-level managers. The findings of the study revealed that employees were more
motivated with a transactional leader than a transformational leader. Similarly, Kim et al. (2010)
found that transactional leaders positively affected job satisfaction.

This could be due to the fact that the effectiveness of leaderships depends on certain conditions
(Pieterse et al., 2010; Wang and Howell, 2010; Li et al., 2013; Northouse, 2013). For example,
Northouse (2013) offered five criticisms of transformational leadership 1) conceptual clarity is
vague because of the wide range of characteristics; 2) The measurement of transformational
leadership using the MLQ compels researchers to question whether the four components
correlated with transactional and laissez-faire factors; 3) Transformational leadership approaches
leadership as a trait rather than a learned behavior; 4) Studies have not established a causal
relationship that transformational leaders caused the transformation of employees and
organizations; 5) A perception existed that transformational leaders are elitist, the leader’s
success was independent of followers’ actions.

2.7. Conceptual Framework

For this study, the conceptual framework was developed based on the research objectives, and
considering various literatures, which indicated that the three leadership styles (transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire) are related to job satisfaction expressed in terms of various

27
facets. It is assumed that each of the leadership styles influences job satisfaction in a certain
ways. Therefore, the conceptual framework of the current study regarded leadership styles as
independent variable and job satisfaction as dependent variable, and presented in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework of the research (Bass and Riggio, 2006).

2.8. Hypotheses

According to Kothari (2004), hypothesis is a logical conjectured relationship between two or

more variables expressed in the form of testable statements. It is a formal statement of an
unproven proposition that is empirically testable (Zikmund et al., 2009). Accordingly, for the
purpose of this study, the following null hypotheses were tested.

H1: There is no a significant relationship between the three leadership styles [transformational
(H1a), transactional (H1b) and laissez-faire (H1c)] and employees’ job satisfaction.

H2: The employees’ demographic characteristics such as sex (H2a), age (H2b), marital status
(H2c), monthly salary (H2d), work experience (H2e) and educational level (H2f) do not
influence job satisfaction.

28
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a method systematically solve the research problem. It consists of all
techniques and procedures that the researcher uses in performing research operations. Hence, this
chapter focused on the research methodology which include research design, research approach,
population and sampling design, sampling techniques and size, method of data collection, data
collection instrument, data analysis, and presentation method, model specification, and ethical
considerations.

3.1. Research Design

А research design is the master blue print of a research project that show all the exact ways on
how a researcher should go to accurately answer the research questions and to perfectly attain the
objectives of the study (Saunders et al., 2009). Zikmund (2003) defined research design more
specifically as it is a specification of the most relevant operations to be performed in order to test
specific hypothesis under given conditions. According to Sekaran (2003), researches in general
can be divided into ‘exploratory’ or ‘descriptive’ studies, based on the nature of the study which
depends on the level of understanding the research topic has advanced. A case study, which is an
examination of studies done in other similar organizational situations, is also a method of solving
problems, or for understanding phenomena of interest and generating further information in that
area (Kyburz-Graber, 2004).

As stated by Al-Sayah (2011) exploratory study is the preliminary study of an unfamiliar

problem about which the researcher is not quite familiar. It is carried out to gain a degree of
familiarity required to intelligently generate new ideas or to formulate a research problem.

A descriptive study is a fact finding investigation carried out with the objective of ascertaining
and describing some aspect of the subject or area under study as it exists at present. This kind of
study concentrates on collecting a detailed field data of things as they exist, with limited stress on
analysis (Al-Sayah, 2011). The analysis in this type of study consists mostly of ordering and
classifying variables rather than finding relationships between different variables (Charmoz,
2005).

29
In this study, both descriptive and explanatory research designs are employed. Descriptive
research was used to describe the information about the research topic. This study aims to
explore the nature of the prevailing leadership in Debre Berhan University and its relation with
employees’ job satisfaction, and hence it is also an explorative study. In addition, cross-sectional
design was used. When information was collected once (Mallhota et al., 1996), cross-sectional
survey design was justified involving proximate and ultimate variables.

3.2. Research Approach

According to Creswell (2009), there are three approaches in conducting scientific research, i.e.,
qualitative, quantitative and mixed approach. Best and Kahn (2006) stated that research can be
qualitative if it describes events and persons scientifically without the use of numerical data
while quantitative research consists of researches in which data can be analyzed in terms of
numbers. A mixed approach is an approach that combines both qualitative and quantitative
methods. Therefore, the mixed approach was used in this study as both qualitative and
quantitative data were collected and analyzed.

3.3. Population and Sampling

3.3.1. Target population

According to Saunders et al. (2009), the population is a full set of cases from which a sample
taken. It is any complete group under investigation that shares some common set of
characteristics (Zikmund et al., 2009). Debre Berhan University has 2169 permanent employees.
Therefore, the target population of the study involved all DBU permanent employees from
academic (1233), administrative (1012), and technical assistant (168) staffs. Of the total
population, 244 academic employees were on study leave during the study (HRM Directorate,
2020).

3.3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

The sampling technique used in this study was a stratified random sampling. Stratified random
sampling is a modification of random sampling in which the population is divided into two or
more relevant and significant strata based on one or more attributes (Saunders et al., 2009) in
which research units are then randomly selected. As the target population of the current study

30
was composed of academic, administrative and technical assistant staffs with different attributes
that can be related with job satisfaction like nature of work, administrative structure, salary, way
of interaction with leaders, supervision and others, the population was divided into three strata.
Thus, this technique was chosen to include representative of the study units from each division of
academic, administrative and technical staffs of the University.

The total number of respondents (sample size) of the study was determined using the formula
developed by Yamane (1973). Then the share of each strata from the total sample size was
calculated from their respective share of the total number of employees in the University (Table
3.1). Greenland et al. (2014) postulated that a 5% sampling error and 95% percent confidence
interval is significant and acceptable.

N
𝑛=
1 + 𝑁(𝑒 2 )
Where:
n = sample size
N = Population size (2169 employees)
e = error (0.05) with a 95% confidence level

Accordingly, a total of 338 full-time employees were selected as a respondent for this study from
2,169 actively working employees of the University. Since 244 academic staffs of the university
were on a study leave, they were not involved in this study in turn not considered in sample size
determination. The total sample size was then proportionally distributed to each division/strata
(academic, administrative and technical assistant staff). Hence, 154 academic, 158 administrative
and 26 technical assistant staffs were randomly selected.

Table 3.1: Sample size distribution

Division Number % Sample size

Academic 989 45.6 154
Administrative 1012 46.7 158
Technical assistant 168 7.7 26
Total 2169 100 338

31
3.4. Type of Data and Method of Collection

The data for this study was obtained from primary and secondary sources. The primary data was
collected from respondents through questionnaires including Demographic Questionnaire,
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1997) and Job Satisfaction Survey
(Spector, 1997) (Appendix A). The secondary data was obtained from Debre Berhan University
(strategic plan (2015/16 – 2019/20), annual reports, periodicals, administrative regulations and
motivation policies), journals, books, and other published and unpublished documents.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

The collected data from primary sources through a survey questionnaire from respondents were
analyzed and inferred quantitatively and qualitatively through the treatment of different
statistical techniques. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed. Descriptive
statistics, such as frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation were calculated following
crosstab procedure of STATA 13. With regards to inferential statistics, Pearson’s correlation
and multiple regression analyses were used to explain the relationship between leadership styles
and job satisfaction. Furthermore, two-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were conducted to
examine the influence of demographic characteristics on employees’ job satisfaction. Effects of
sex and marital status were examined using two-sample t-test, while that of age, monthly salary,
work experience and educational level were subjected to ANOVA. Finally, tables and figures
were used to present the results of the study.

3.5.1. Model specification

In order to show the predictability of leadership styles to employees’ job satisfaction in Debre
Berhan University, the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model was employed. As the
existing literatures imply, there are many explanatory variables which are capable of determining
the employees’ job satisfaction. However, since it is not possible to address all the variables that
influence employees’ job satisfaction because of technical reasons and difficulty in measuring
certain variables, this study adopted the regression model considering the three leadership styles
to predict the level of employees’ job satisfaction. Following Gujarati (2004), the multiple
regression analyses model was specified as follows:

32
 JS = β0 + β1 TSi + β2 TFi + β3 LFi + εi
Where:
JS = Job satisfaction
TS = Transactional leadership style
TF = Transformational leadership style
LF = Laissez-Faire leadership style
β0, β1, β2, β3 parameter estimates of the regression model
ε = stochastic term in the model

ANOVA to determine the effect of demographic characteristics of employees on job satisfaction

was computed using the following model:

Yij    Ai  eij
Where: Yij is the response of the j th respondent with i th demographic character
 , general mean

Ai , effect of the i th demographic variable

eij , error term

3.5.2. Model diagnostic tests

i. Normality test

The data analysis methods used in this study, such as t tests, ANOVA, multiple regression and
correlation analyses, are parametric statistics that theoretically assume normally distributed
variables. A normal distribution or a Gaussian distribution assumes that the populations from
which the samples are taken are normally distributed. Normal distributions take the form of a
bell-shaped curve (Liao et al., 2004). Kurtosis, skewness and their standard errors are common
descriptive statistics that measure the figure of the distribution. Skewness refers to the skew of a
distribution. Kurtosis refers to the ‘peakedness’ of a distribution and measures the relationship
between a distribution’s tails and its most numerous values (Everitt, 2006). Even though kurtosis
can lead to an underestimation of variance, the risk is reduced with large sample size (>200)
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). A commonly used rule-of-thumb test for normality is to run
descriptive statistics to obtain skewness and kurtosis. The results are then divided by the standard

33
errors. Skewness and kurtosis should be within the +2 to -2 range when the data are normally
distributed (Liao et al., 2004).

ii. Test for multi-collinearity

The independent variables in a multiple regression model should not be collinear, i.e., strongly
correlated with each other. Multicollinearity referred to the existence of more than one exact
linear relationship, and collinearity states to the existence of a single linear relationship. But this
distinction is rarely maintained in practice, and multicollinearity refers to both cases (Gujarati,
2004). Before taking the selected variables into the regression model, it is necessary to check for
the existence of multicollinearity among the continuous variables and verify the associations
among discrete variables. The reason for this is that the existence of multicollinearity will affect
seriously the parameter estimates. If multicollinearity turns out to be significant, the
simultaneous presence of the two variables will attenuate or reinforce the individual effects of
these variables. In short, the coefficients of the interaction of the variables indicate whether or
not one of the two linked variables should be eliminated from model analysis. In this study,
following Gujarati (2004), a Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) and Tolerance (ToL) techniques
were employed to detect the problem of multicollinearity. The mean Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF) for the independent variables confirmed the absence of multi-collinearity problem since
mean VIF < 10.

iii. Test for heteroscedasticity

The t tests, ANOVA and regression analysis assume homogeneity of variance (i.e., the variability
in the dependent variable should be equal with respect to each independent variable). If
heteroscedasticity or non-homogeneity of variance occurs, then the standard errors are biased, so
that the results of hypothesis tests and confidence intervals may be invalid. The assumption states
the variance of each 𝜀𝑖 is the similar for all the values of the explanatory variable. Symbolically,

𝒗𝒂𝒓(𝜺𝒊 ) = 𝑬[𝜺𝒊 − 𝑬(𝜺𝒊 )]𝟐 = 𝑬(𝜺𝒊 )𝟐 = 𝜹𝟐𝜺 , 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕.

This feature of homogeneity of variance (or constant variance) is known as homoscedasticity. It

may be the case, however, that all of the disturbance terms do not have the same variance. This

34
condition of non-constant variance or non-homogeneity of variance is known as
heteroscedasticity. Thus, we say that 𝜀’s are heteroscedastic when:

𝒗𝒂𝒓(𝜺𝒊 ) = 𝜹𝟐𝜺𝒊 , 𝒂 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒔.

According to Gujarati (2004) Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test for heteroscedasticity was

employed.

3.6. Measurements

For the purpose of this study a structured questionnaire was used as the primary data collection
method. The instrument has three parts. Part one was a self-developed questionnaire, used to
obtain demographic information of the respondents like age, sex, monthly salary, marital status,
educational level, and work experience.

The second part of the instrument was used to measure leadership style using Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) adapted from Bass and Avolio (1997). It is the most widely
used and researched instruments of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
styles (Bass and Avolio, 2004; Gillespie and Mann, 2004), in various leadership arenas,
including education (Leapley-Portscheller, 2008), with high coefficients for reliability (Cronbach
alpha) that ranged from 0.60 to 0.92 (Avolio and Bass, 2004; Grey, 2005). The MLQ-5X consists
of 36 types of questions, which helps to identify what kind of leadership style (transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership style) the leaders practiced in the organization. MLQ
was presented into 9 factors of leadership (5 for transformational; 3 for transactional and 1 factor
for laissez-faire leadership styles). The rating for the MLQ-5X include 0 = Not at all, 1 = Once in
a while, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = frequently, if not always.

The third part of the instrument was used to measure job satisfaction based on the 36-item 9-
facet scale Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) developed by Spector (1997). The nine facets are pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, working condition, co-workers,
nature of work, and communication. Each facet is assessed with four items, and a total score is
computed from all items. A summated rating scale format was used, with six choices per item
ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". Items are written in both directions, so
about half must be reverse scored. Scores on each of the nine facet subscales based on 4 items

35
each, while scores for total job satisfaction based on the sum of all 36 items. Each item is scored
from 1 to 6 if the original answer choices are used. High scores on the scale represent job
satisfaction, so the scores on the negatively worded items must be reversed before summing with
the positively worded into facet or total scores. A score of 6 representing strongest agreement
with a negatively worded item is considered equivalent to a score of 1 representing strongest
disagreement on a positively worded item, allowing them to be combined meaningfully.
Furthermore, the JSS uses 6-point agree-disagree response choices, it is assumed that agreement
with positively-worded items and disagreement with negatively-worded items would represent
satisfaction, whereas disagreement with positive-worded items, and agreement with negative-
worded items represents dissatisfaction. For the 4-item subscales, as well as the 36-item total
score, this means that scores with a mean item response (after reverse scoring the negatively-
worded items) of 4 or more represents satisfaction, whereas mean responses of 3 or less
represents dissatisfaction. Mean scores between 3 and 4 are ambivalence.

3.7. Ethical Consideration

According to Cooper and Schindler (2003), ethics are the norms or standards of behavior that
guide moral choices about our behavior and our relationships with others. the researcher
conducting ethically because it is one of the main issues for every research. So that, the
researcher ethically considers before collection of data to understand the respondent’s
willingness, without mandatory and harmfully to answer the given questionnaire, clearly explain
the purpose of the study, there will not express their personal information in the answer of the
questionnaire, keep the time when the respondents’ interest, keep confidentially for any things
and appreciating their collaboration of the respondents.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter focuses on data analysis, presentation and interpretation of the findings to answer
the research questions and verify the proposed hypotheses. The responses obtained from the
respondents were summarized and presented in tables and figures. The survey questionnaires
were distributed to 338 participants. Of the 338 participants, 316 returned the questionnaires,
accounting to a response rate of 93%. It was then further observed that all of the questionnaires
returned were completely filled, and subjected to analysis. The responses of the participants
using MLQ and JSS regarding the perceived scores for leadership styles and job satisfaction,
respectively were summarized using mean and standard deviation, whereas distribution of
respondents about demographic characteristics of respondents were summarized using
frequencies and percentages. In addition, correlation and regression analyses were employed to
determine the relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction. Both two-sample t-test
and ANOVA were also computed to determine the effect of demographic characters on job
satisfaction.

4.1. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments

Even though previous studies have been confirmed the reliability of the instruments used to
collect data (MLQ-5X and JSS questionnaires), a reliability test was carried out for leadership
styles and job satisfaction to determine how readily the items fit together (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Reliability test for leadership styles and employees job satisfaction

Variable Frequency Sign Cronbach's alpha

Job satisfaction 316 + 0.77
Transformational leadership style 316 + 0.76
Transactional leadership style 316 + 0.78
Laissez-faire leadership style 316 + 0.77
Score test 0.82
Source: Own survey, 2020

37
The reliability of the instruments was verified by the Cronbach’s alpha considering the
conventional cut-off point of 0.7. The Cronbach’s alpha is a technique that helps to determine the
reliability of a survey instrument and the internal consistency of the average correlation of
variables in the survey (Gleim and Gleim, 2003).

According to Field (2005) and Pallant (2013) a Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.7 indicates
internal consistency on the instrument. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of job
satisfaction and leadership styles, ranged from 0.76 to 0.82 (Table 4.1), which were higher than
0.7, suggesting that each variable considered in the study had acceptable internal consistency and
hence reliable in measuring what they were designed to measure.

This result was also supported by Avolio and Bass (2004) who validated the use of the MLQ for
organizational survey and research purposes to quantify the extent and pattern of leadership of
businesses and industrial managers, military officers, school principals, religious ministers,
government administrators, sport coaches, and others whose degree and style of leadership
associated with satisfaction, team effectiveness, and organizational success. More recently, in
line with the current study, the instruments were also confirmed to produce suitable data with
reliability coefficients of the various elements in the questionnaires ranged from 0.84-0.96
(Adekunle, 2017).

4.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

This section deals with the analysis of the respondents’ general information including sex, age,
marital status, educational level, monthly income and work experience. Distributions of
respondents according to demographic variables are presented in Table 4.2.

38
Table 4.2: Demographic distribution of respondents

Variable Category Frequency Percent

Sex Male 165 52.2
Female 151 47.8
Age (years) 25 - 30 68 21.5
31 - 35 136 43.0
36 - 40 72 22.8
> 40 40 12.7
Marital status Single 144 45.6
Married 172 54.4
Salary (ETB) < 5000 114 36.1
5001 - 8000 71 22.5
8001 - 11000 16 5.06
> 11000 115 36.4
Work experience (years) <2 83 26.3
3-4 101 32.0
5-6 84 26.6
>6 48 15.2
Educational level Diploma, level III , IV 46 14.6
Bachelor degree 158 50.0
Master’s degree 97 30.7
PhD 15 4.75
ETB = Ethiopian birr, PhD = Doctor of Philosophy
Source: Own survey, 2020

The majority of the respondents were male (52.2%) and the rest (47.8%) were female. This
indicates that the number of male respondents in the study was higher than that of females,
which can be due to the nature of the employees in Debre Berhan University where male
employees formed the majority of the target population. In terms of age, the highest age group of
respondents (43.0%) included those between 31-35 years and the lowest was those above 40
years (12.7%), while the proportion of respondents under age groups of 25-30 years (21.5%) and

39
36-40 years (22.8%) accounted in between. This indicates the nature of the workforce in the
University and its future potential as there is a greater chance that the majority of the employees
tended to serve longer until retirement. According to the respondents’ monthly salary, the
majority salaried below 5000 ETB (36.1%) and above 11000 ETB (36.4%). The respondents
who waged monthly salary of 5001 – 8000 and 8001 - 11000 ETB were 22.5% and 5.06%,
respectively. With respect to work experience, the majority (32.0%) of the respondents worked
for 3 – 4 years in the University, while only 15.2% of the respondents had above 6 years of
experience. The rest of the respondents served < 2 years (26.3%) and between 5 – 6 years
(26.6%). Relatively, the smaller proportion of employees who served above 6 years might be
partly related with the age of the University from its establishment. Now, the University is 12
years old since it was established in 2008 G.C.

Distribution of the respondents according to their marital status indicated that over half (54.4%)
of them were married while the rest (45.6%) were single. None of the respondents was widowed
or divorced. As respondents’ educational level was considered, about 14.6% of the respondents
received a diploma or level III and IV, while 50% and 30.8% had bachelor and master’s degree,
respectively. The rest of them (4.75%) were PhD holders. This implies that the majority of the
respondents were first degree holders, which manifested the general gaze of employees in the
University.

4.3. Leadership Styles

In this section a descriptive analysis of leadership style using measures of central tendency and
dispersion was presented. This section addresses research question 1: What kind of leadership
style is frequently practiced by leaders of the University?

The data collected using Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was analyzed to identify the
leadership styles of Debre Berhan University. The success of an organization, among other
things, highly depends on the quality of leadership. A suitable leadership style to a particular
context is an indispensable instrument to derive and stimulate followers towards goal
achievement (Lussier and Achua, 2011), which is eventually dependent on employees job
satisfaction. It is one of the major determinants affecting employee's attitude and their
willingness to contribute to the success of the organization and remain employed longer

40
(Razadihm, 2015). For that purpose the full range leadership theory (transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire) have been considered to identify the prevailing leadership style
being practiced by leaders in Debre Berhan University. Table 4.3 indicates the perceived scores
provided by employees for leadership styles in the University.

Table 4.3: Scores of leadership behaviors in Debre Berhan University as perceived by employees

Perceived score
Parameters N Min Max Mean SD

Transformational leadership style 316 2.00 3.5 3.17 0.20

Idealized influence (attributed) 316 2.00 3.75 3.06 0.36
Idealized influence (behavior) 316 2.25 3.75 3.12 0.31
Inspirational motivation 316 2.00 3.75 3.19 0.36
Intellectual stimulation 316 2.25 3.75 3.01 0.34
Individualized consideration 316 2.00 4.00 3.12 0.41
Transactional leadership style 316 2.15 3.50 2.70 0.22
Contingent reward 316 1.75 3.75 2.64 0.41
Management-by-exception (active) 316 2.00 3.50 2.78 0.32
Management-by-exception (passive) 316 1.75 3.75 2.69 0.36
Laissez-faire leadership style 316 1.50 3.25 2.43 0.35
N = number of respondents; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; SD = standard deviation
Source: Own survey, 2020

All of the five subscales of transformational leadership style bear mean scores greater than that
of the transactional subscales and the laissez-faire leadership style. Specifically, the highest mean
score was for inspirational motivation (M = 3.19, SD = 0.36) followed by idealized influence
(behavior) (M = 3.12, SD= 0.31), individualized consideration (M = 3.12 SD = 0.41), idealized
influence (Attributed) (M = 3.06, SD= 0.36) and intellectual stimulation (M = 3.01, SD = 0.34).
The lowest mean score was that of laissez-faire leadership style (M = 2.43, SD = 0.35). The
overall mean score values were 3.17, 2.70 and 2.43 for transformational, transactional and
laissez-faire leadership styles, respectively. Thus, the leaders of the University as perceived by
their employees are demonstrating transformational leadership behavior more often than

41
transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. This can be interpreted as the level of
transformational leadership behavior, specifically the inspirational motivation, idealized
influence (behavior), individualized consideration, idealized influence (attributed) and
intellectual stimulation adopted by the leaders of the University in their order.

The mean scores can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a leadership. Bass and Avolio
(1997) suggested that for the most effective leadership mean scores should be 3 and above for all
dimensions of the transformational leadership style. Scores below 1 indicate a non-leadership or
laissez-faire behavior; scores of 2.5 and below indicates a transactional leadership behavior,
namely, management by exception (passive and active) and contingent reward. As the mean
score of all the dimensions of transformational leadership style were above the minimum
threshold for effectiveness of leadership, it can be inferred that the leaders of Debre Berhan
University are effective transformational leaders.

The mean score of contingent reward of transactional leadership in the current study (2.64)
matched with a score suggested by Bass and Avolio for effective leadership, that should be
greater than 2. However, the transactional leadership style in terms of active management-by-
exception (2.78) and passive management-by-exception (2.69) was not effective since the
suggested mean scores are 1.0 to 2.0 for active management-by-exception and 1 for passive
management-by-exception (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Exceptional to others, the contingent reward
being effective in Debre Berhan University can be explained as it can be transformational when
the reward is psychological such as praise (Bass and Riggio, 2006). When managers frequently
use the psychological rewards, the subordinates become more motivated and do more (Awan and
Mahmood, 2009).

Regarding to the laissez-faire leadership style, the mean score (2.42) suggesting that the
occasionally practiced laissez-faire behavior of leaders in Debre Berhan University was not as
such effective since the laissez-faire leadership style is believed to be effective if the score is less
than 1 (Bass and Avolio, 1997). The laissez-faire leader is in most cases left with only the
communication role for facilitation (Daniels, 2014). This leadership behavior is the most
ineffective and inactive behavior of leadership, and is strongly associated with employees
dissatisfaction, conflict and ineffectiveness (Fennell, 2012).

42
4.4. Employees’ Job Satisfaction

In this section a descriptive analysis on job satisfaction of employees in Debre Berhan was
presented to answer research question 2: To what degree employees of Debre Berhan University
are satisfied with the existing leadership? Table 4.4. shows the level of satisfaction of employees
at their jobs using the nine factors (attributes) namely pay, promotion, supervision, fringe
benefits, contingent rewards, working conditions, coworkers, nature of work and communication
in Debre Berhan University.

Table 4.4: Scores of employees’ job satisfaction in Debre Berhan University

Perceived score
Parameters N Min Max Mean SD
Pay 316 1.75 3.50 2.75 0.38

Promotion 316 2.00 4.00 3.13 0.39

Supervision 316 2.00 4.50 3.51 0.53

Fringe benefit 316 2.00 4.75 3.59 0.51

Contingent rewards 316 2.00 5.00 3.80 0.60

Working conditions 316 3.25 5.50 4.38 0.44

Co-worker 316 2.50 5.50 4.38 0.54

Nature of the work 316 3.00 5.25 4.33 0.42

Communication 316 3.25 5.25 4.05 0.38

Overall satisfaction 316 2.47 4.31 3.77 0.24

N = number of respondents; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; SD = standard deviation

Source: Own survey, 2020

The overall job satisfaction, a composite score of the nine dimensions of job satisfaction as
measured using the questionnaire on job satisfaction was 3.77 (SD = 0.24). Specifically, the
lowest mean job satisfaction sub-variable was pay (M = 2.74, SD = 0.382) and the maximum
mean job satisfaction sub-variables were working conditions (M = 4.38, SD= 0.44) and co-
worker (M = 4.38, SD= 0.54) with comparable scores each other.

43
As Spector (1997) suggested that the average mean score from 1 to 3 is considered as
dissatisfied, from 3 to 4 as ambivalent and from 4 to 6 as satisfied. Therefore, employees were
ambivalent or neutral about their work in Debre Berhan university. Despite the transformational
leadership being frequently exhibited by leaders of Debre Berhan University, ambivalent level of
employees’ job satisfaction might be due to other non-leadership factors like demographic
characteristics of the employees, for instance salaries can play a definite role in this respect as
this was consistently supported by the recorded value of pay satisfaction. This is also believed by
others (Pieterse et al., 2010; Wang and Howell, 2010; Li et al., 2013; Northouse 2013) who
outlined that the effectiveness of transformational leadership existed only in certain conditions.
Calisir et al. (2010) stated that salaries and incentives are the most important determinant of job
satisfaction. Moreover, it can be also due to that leaders of the University exhibited more
inspirational motivation behavior than intellectual stimulation and individual consideration as
Alsayah (2011) reported the two dimensions of transformational leadership behaviors
(intellectual stimulation and individual consideration) are the most significant predictors of level
of job satisfaction. This is because, as an academic institute, employees desire leaders to
stimulate their effort to be inventive and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing
problems, and approaching old situations in new ways as well as individual differences in terms
of needs and desires have to be recognized. Relatively higher scores provided by employees for
facets which are more related to the working environment (working conditions, co-workers and
nature of work) than the leader-related attributes (supervision, fringe benefit, contingent rewards
and promotion satisfaction) also strengthen this result.

4.5. Relationships Between Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction

It is imperative to know how a particular leadership style affecting the form and levels of
employees job satisfaction. This section discourses the results obtained from inferential statistics
to determine the relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction, engaged to address
research questions 3 and 4, respectively: Is there statistically significant relationship between the
three leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) and employees’ job
satisfaction? and To what extent do the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire) influence employees’ job satisfaction? Therefore, the null hypotheses (H1a-
H1c) of no relationship between the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional and

44
laissez-faire) and employees’ job satisfaction were tested with Pearson’s correlation and
regression analyses.

4.5.1. Pearson’s correlation analysis

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to determine the direction and strength of the
relationship between variables. Although this statistic is over a century old as it was coined by
Karl Pearson in 1896, it is still going strong and one of the most used statistics today, second to
mean (Ratner, 2009). The correlation coefficient is denoted by ‘r’ and can be taken only the
value ranged from – 1 to + 1; i.e. if r = +1, indicates a perfect positive relationship, and r = -1,
perfect negative relationship (Pallent, 2003).

Table 4.5: Directions and strengths of correlation coefficient values

Correlation Value
Positive Negative Correlation Strength

0.00-0.09 -0.09-0.00 No relationship

1.00 -1.00 Perfect positive (negative) linear relationship
0.10 - 0.29 -0.10 to - 0.29 Weak positive (negative) linear relationship
0.30 - 0.49 -0.30 to - 0.49 Moderate positive (negative) linear relationship
0.50 - 1 -0.5 to -1 Strong positive (negative) linear relationship
Source: Pallent (2003)

Table 4.6: Correlation between leadership styles and job satisfaction

Variables Job Laissez-Faire Transformational Transactional
Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction r 1.000
p (2-tailed)
Laissez-faire r -0.159 1.000
p (2-tailed) 0.005
Transformational r 0.536 0.274 1.000
p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
Transactional r 0.457 0.256 0.224 1.000
p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Source: Own survey, 2020

45
As indicated in table 4.6, the result revealed highly significant positive linear relationships
between each leadership styles and job satisfaction (p < 0.01), except between laissez-faire
leadership and job satisfaction which is negative. Considering the degree of the relationships,
using the commonly used guideline proposed by Pallent (2003, Table 4.5), transformational
leadership style showed a strong positive linear relationship with job satisfaction (r = 0.536). The
relationship between transactional and job satisfaction was moderate (r = 0.457). However, the
relationship between laissez-faire leadership and job satisfaction (r = - 0.159), and of between
leadership styles each other were weak with r values ranging from 0.224 to 0.274, reflecting very
low effect sizes.

4.5.2. Linear regression analysis

4.5.2.1. Classical linear regression model assumptions tests

For a better understanding of the relationships between leadership styles and job satisfaction in a
predictive manner, a multiple regression analysis was also conducted. Multiple regression
analysis (MRA) is a multivariate statistical technique that is used for studying the relationship
between a single dependent variable and several independent variables (Chatfield, 1993). It
affords a method to predict the changes in the dependent variable in response to changes in more
than one independent variable. Hence, it helps to determine the relative importance of each
predictor as well as to ascertain the collective contribution of the independent variables (Sekaran,
2003).

However, multiple linear regression needs several basic assumptions to be tested before the
analysis is conducted. The five basic assumptions are linearity, normality, multi-collinearity,
autocorrelation and homoscedasticity. For the purpose of this study, three of the basic
assumptions (normality, multi-collinearity and homoscedasticity) were tested because of their
stringent nature. Moreover, an autocorrelation test was not undertaken since it is viable for time
series data, but the nature of the current data is a cross-sectional.

Linearity test

In multiple linear regressions, the first assumption to be tested is linearity. Linearity means the
relationship between dependent and independent variables is to be linear. This relationship

46
characterized by a straight line. Linearity allows the researcher to predict the dependent variable
based on one or more several independent variables. The assumption was checked through a
scatter plot by looking at whether the two variables approximately form a straight line.
Therefore, the linear relationship between the dependent (job satisfaction) and independent
(leadership style) variables was confirmed through the scatter plot (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Linearity test

Source: Own survey, 2020

Normality test

Normality assumes that the data to be normally distributed (symmetry about the mean). The
normal distribution of data characterized bell-shaped means that the data has spread evenly so
that it can represent the population. Data that is not normal, can be distinguished by the level of
skewness, that negative skewness indicates scores are clustered to the right (the data tends to
skew to right), whereas positive skewness indicates a clustering of scores at the left side of the
graph (positive skewness). Normally distributed data is symmetrical about the mean, has zero
skewness (Ainiyah and Deliar, 2016). Accordingly, frequency distribution of job satisfaction
scores of employees in Debre Berhan University was tested for its normality. The employees’
job satisfaction score, visualized by bell-shape (Figure 4.2), was reasonably normally distributed.

47
Figure 4.2: Frequency distribution of overall job satisfaction

Source: Own survey, 2020

Multi-collinearity test

In multiple regression analysis, the regressor variables should not significantly correlated to each
other because if any two variables are correlated, the real magnitude of the relationship they have
with the dependent variable is either deemed best or it can be depressed. If there is a multi-
collinearity problem, variance of the model and variances of coefficients will be inflated (Lynn,
2012). According to the author, it commonly occurs when a large number of independent
variables are incorporated in a regression model because some of them may measure the same
concepts or phenomena.

As Williams (2015) explained multi-collinearity problem can be detected either by computing

correlation coefficients of independent variables or checking related statistics such as variance
inflation factor (VIF). But, high correlation coefficients do not necessarily imply multi-
collinearity. VIF shows how multi-collinearity has increased the instability of the coefficient
estimates. The VIF values of 1.13, 1.11 and 1.10 for transformational, transactional and laissez-
faire leadership styles, respectively with mean value of 1.1 obtained in the current study (Table
4.7) confirmed the absence of multi-collinearity problem since all the VIFs are less than 10.

48
Table 4.7: Multi-collinearity test
Variable VIF 1/VIF
Transformational leadership style 1.13 0.8995
Transactional leadership style 1.11 0.9090
Laissez-faire leadership style 1.10 0.8853

Mean VIF 1.10 -

Source: Own survey, 2020

Heteroscedasticity test

Homoscedasticity refers to equal variance of residuals (errors). This assumes that the variance
around the regression line is the similar for all values of the predictor variable. In the current
study Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test was used to test the null hypothesis that the error
variances are all equal versus the alternative that the error variances are a multiplicative function
of one or more variables. A non-significant result (Table 4.8), suggesting that the assumption of
homoscedasticity is not violated i.e. there is no problem of heteroscedasticity.

Table 4.8: Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroscedasticity

Model Chi-square (1) P

1 3.43 0.2069
H0: The error term has constant variance
Variables: Fitted/Predicted values of Job satisfaction
Source: Own survey, 2020

4.5.2.2. Regression parameters analyses

The importance of each leadership style as predictors of job satisfaction was confirmed by use of
multiple regression analysis. The best-fitting linear equation to predict the job satisfaction scores
of the employees was:

49
 JS = 2.29 + 0.449TF + 0.254TS − 0.165LF
Where:
JS = Job satisfaction
TS = Transactional leadership style
TF = Transformational leadership style
LF = Laissez-Faire leadership style

Regression model summary

Table 4.9: Summary of the regression model analysis

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 SE

1 0.838 0.703 0.690 0.017

Predictors: (Constant), Leadership Styles

Source: Own Survey, 2020

Based on the regression model (Table 4.9), the R-square value indicates how much variation of
the dependent variable explained by the variation in the independent variables. Therefore, the R-
square value of 0.703 indicated that the leadership styles (Transformational leadership,
Transactional Leadership style, Laissez–fair Leadership style) explained 70.3% of the variation
in job satisfaction. The remaining 29.7% of the variation in job satisfaction in Debre Berhan
University explained by other variables which are not included in the regression model.

Regression ANOVA

Table 4.10: Summary of regression ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Regression 12.31 3 4.1033
Residual 5.20 312 0.0167 245.7 0.000
Total 17.52 315 0.0556
Dependent variable: Job satisfaction
Predictors: (Constant), Leadership styles
Source: Own survey, 2020

50
The purpose of regression Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is to evaluate whether the multiple
linear regression model has Significantly better-predicting power for the outcome (dependent)
variable. In the regression ANOVA model, the total variation of the dependent variable
categorized into regression and residual which indicate the explained and unexplained variation
of the dependent variable respectively. As indicated in Table 4.10, the F-ratio confirmed that the
overall regression model was a good fit for the data. This mean that the independent variables
had predicted the dependent variable significantly (p < 0.01).

Regression coefficients

The contribution of each independent variable to predict job satisfaction was presented in Table
4.11. The t tests indicated that the partial regression coefficients for all independent variables
(transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles) were significantly different
from zero at α = 0.001, not providing support for H1a-H1c. The intercept value (2.29) was also
significantly different from zero (p < 0.001).

Table 4.11: Regression coefficient values of the variables to predict job satisfaction

Coef. Std. Err. t p

Transformational 0.499 0.062 7.99 0.000
Transactional 0.254 0.056 4.46 0.000
Laissez-Faire -0.165 0.036 -4.58 0.000
Constant 2.290 0.212 10.82 0.000
Source: Own survey, 2020

Transformational leadership style was the first contributor to the variation in employees’ job
satisfaction and it was significant in influencing the level of employees’ job satisfaction (p <
0.01). The coefficient 0.499 indicated that transformational leadership style had direct (positive)
influence on job satisfaction i.e. keeping other things constant, a unit change in an effort of
adopting transformational leadership style lead to an improvement in the level of employee’s job
satisfaction by 0.499 unit. In other word, it means that as Transformational leadership style
increased by 1% job satisfaction also increased by 49.9% and vice versa. This is in agreement
with the result of Agodu (2018) who reported that a one unit increase of transformational

51
leadership correspond with an increase in the value of employee job satisfaction by 0.59 units.
while transactional and laissez-faire leaderships did not significantly predict employee job
satisfaction. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between transformational leadership style and
employee’s job satisfaction level also supported as there exist a significant correlation (p <
0.001) (Table 4.6).

A review of leadership studies on military, government, and organizational leaders also

suggested that the stronger relationships between employees’ job satisfaction and
transformational leadership than with transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors
(Peterson et al., 2003; Mullins, 2007; Bertocci, 2009). Recent studies also affirmed that
transformational leadership had a positive relationship with employees’ job satisfaction
(Mancheno-Smoak et al., 2009; Bodla and Nawaz, 2010; Voon et al., 2011). Bodla and Nawaz’s
(2010) investigation on faculty members and professors from public and private Universities
using Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure various aspects of
transformational leadership depicted that transformational leadership positively influence job
satisfaction. Similarly, several researchers argued that transformational leadership has a positive
impact on job satisfaction (Bass, 2009; Li and Hung, 2009; Pieterse et al., 2010; Pereira and
Gomes, 2012).

Transactional leadership style was the second contributor to the variation in employees’ job
satisfaction and it is significant in influencing the level of employees’ job satisfaction (p < 0.01).
The regression coefficient 0.254 indicated that transactional leadership style had direct (positive)
influence on job satisfaction i.e. keeping others constant, a unit change in an effort of adopting
transactional leadership style lead to an improvement in the level of employee’s job satisfaction
by 0.254 unit. In other word, it means that as transactional leadership style increased by 1% job
satisfaction also increased by 25.4% and vice versa.

In line with this study, Hongnou et al. (2014) established a significant and positive relationship
between transactional leadership and job satisfaction. It has influenced by factors of
achievement, recognition, salary, advancement, working conditions and relationship with others.
The study of Rizi et al. (2013) also argued a positive relationship between transactional
leadership and job satisfaction. However, the level of influence/contribution of transactional

52
leadership on job satisfaction being lower than that of transformational leadership can be
explained in terms of the fact that transactional leaders focused more on job success rather than
job satisfaction (Riaz and Haider, 2010). Even some researchers (Voon et al., 2011; Ali et al.,
2013) claimed none significant relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction.
Others also argued that transactional leaders focused more on penalizing errors and engaged in
micromanagement while transformational leaders inspired and motivated employees (Braun et
al., 2013; Riaz and Haider, 2010).

Laissez-faire leadership style was the third contributor to the variation in employees’ job
satisfaction, which negatively influenced the level of employees’ job satisfaction (p < 0.01). The
regression coefficient -0.165 indicated that laissez-faire leadership style had indirect (negative)
influence on job satisfaction i.e. keeping other factors constant, a unit reduction in an effort of
adopting laissez-faire leadership style lead to an improvement in the level of employee’s job
satisfaction by 0.165 unit. In other word, as laissez-faire leadership style increased by 1% job
satisfaction decreased by 16.5% and vice versa.

In agreement with the current study, job satisfaction was negatively related with laissez-faire
leadership (Rizi et al., 2013). Bass (2009) reported that laissez-faire leadership is not close to the
transformational and transactional leadership spectrum and represents the absence of leadership.
In addition, some scholars concluded that laissez-faire leaders did not offer any positive
influence on job satisfaction (Bennett, 2009; Furtner et al., 2012; Sadeghi and Pihie, 2012). Since
the laissez-faire leaders, in most cases, have only the communication role for facilitation
(Daniels, 2014), this leadership is strongly associated with employees dissatisfaction (Fennell,
2012).

However, in contrary to this, some researchers (Kim et al., 2010; Chaudhry and Husnain, 2012)
concluded that laissez-faire leadership positively influence job satisfaction, and justified that
laissez-faire leadership style is positively associated with extrinsic motivating factors. This
discrepancy might be due to the nature of the work since employees involved with high
emotional labor do not prefer transactional leadership (Liu et al., 2011), laissez-faire leaders may
be appropriate for the type of work environment where workers receive minimal feedback to
achieve job satisfaction. According to Northouse (2013), a supervisor who does not engage in

53
meetings, pursues little to no contact with employees, and has no visions to share with
subordinates is an example of a laissez-faire leader. The positive relationship between laissez-
faire leadership and job satisfaction involving academic deans was also explained by the fact that
academicians desired to operate with autonomy (Sadeghi and Pihie, 2012). Similarly, Sadeghi
and Pihie (2012) noted that despite the criticisms of laissez-faire leadership, there is a place for
the laissez-faire leader in today’s workplace that positively influence job satisfaction. Despite the
above antagonistic results, several studies obtained that laissez-faire leadership style had no
significant relationship with job satisfaction (Bass, 2009; Chaudhry and Husnain, 2012;
Ghorbanian et al., 2012; Sadeghi and Pihie, 2012).

4.7. Effect of Demographics on Job Satisfaction

This section presents two-sample t-test for effect of sex and marital status, and one-way ANOVA
for effect of age, monthly salary, work experience and educational level on job satisfaction to
address research question 5: Do the employees’ demographic characteristics influence their job
satisfaction under the existing leadership in Debre Berhan University? This analysis combined
the responses to the self-developed and JSS questionnaires. A composite score of the nine
dimensions of job satisfaction (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards,
operating, co-workers, nature of work and communication satisfaction) was appointed for the
analysis. Six analyses (two two-sample t-test and four one-way ANOVAs) were performed to
test the null hypotheses (H2a-H2f) that six independent variables representing the demographic
characteristics of the respondents (sex, age, marital status, monthly salary, work experience and
educational level) had no effects on job satisfaction. A Levene’s test of error variance was
conducted for each ANOVA to take the assumption of homogeneity of variance into account (to
decrease the chance of Type II error). Mean job satisfaction scores of employees according to
their demographics are presented in Table 4.12.

54
Table 4.12: Effect of demographics on employees job satisfaction

Variable Category Mean SD P

Sex Male 3.75 0.014
Female 3.78 0.021 0.3263
Age (years) ≤ 30 3.79 0.224
31 – 35 3.73 0.293
36 - 40 3.81 0.149 0.1190
> 40 3.74 0.123
Marital status Single 3.74 0.024
Married 3.79 0.012 0.0741
Monthly salary (ETB) ≤ 5000 3.71b 0.338
5001 - 8000 3.82a 0.168
8001 - 11000 3.87a 0.194 0.0014
> 11000 3.73b 0.206
Work experience (years) ≤2 3.81a 0.197
3-4 3.73b 0.203
5-6 3.70b 0.317 0.0008
>6 3.84a 0.139
Educational level Diploma, level III, IV 3.84a 0.164
Bachelor degree 3.77b 0.264
Master’s degree 3.73b 0.219 0.0016
PhD 3.73b 0.128
Mean values within the same category with different superscript letters are significantly different (p <
0.05); ETB = Ethiopian birr; SD = Standard deviation
Source: Own survey, 2020

Sex, age and marital status of the respondents had no significant effects on job satisfaction (p >
0.05), providing support for H2a-H2c. However, the mean job satisfaction scores varied
significantly with respect to monthly salary (p < 0.01), work experience (p < 0.01) and
educational level (p < 0.05), not providing support for H2d-H2f.

55
Both male and female employees in Debre Berhan University have equal level of satisfaction
about their job. Similarly, several researchers reported insignificant differences between male
and female regarding job satisfaction (Onuoha et al., 2014; Ghiasi and Limoni, 2015;
Marasinghe and Wijayaratne, 2018). However, findings regarding effect of sex differences on
job satisfaction are inconsistent. Some studies investigated that males are more satisfied than
females (Nadjla and Hasan, 2009; Ogunlana et al., 2013), while others (Amune, 2014) reported
the opposite, females are more satisfied than males. A study by Murray and Atkinson (2000)
highlighted gender differences as a determinants of job satisfaction reflected that females attach
more importance to social factors, while males place greater value on pay, advancement and
other extrinsic aspects. Men tend to have higher satisfaction with remuneration in relation to
females, while females tend to have higher satisfaction with co-workers than males (Tang and
Talpade, 2001).

Although not statistically supported at the conventional level of significance (α = 0.05), there
was a trend of higher level of job satisfaction for married employees than the single ones (p <
0.1). Kuo (2004) reported that married employees experienced higher levels of job satisfaction in
comparison to that of single employees. In fact, employees who have partners are expected to
have more job satisfaction than those who are single or living alone because they have emotional
and mental support from their partners (Robbins et al., 2003).

Non-significant differences in mean job satisfaction among different age group in the current
study agreed with the report of Steijin (2004), while disagreed with some other researches. It is
generally understood that job satisfaction increases linearly with age (Spector, 2000). Drafke and
Kossen (2002) argued that older employees are generally happier with their jobs than younger
employees. Likewise, Mullins (2002) stated that job satisfaction typically increases with age as
older employees have a more realistic view of work and life in comparison to their younger
counterparts. Furthermore, Blood et al. (2002) argued that there are several reasons for the
variance in job satisfaction between older and younger employees. Their view is that younger
employees are generally more dissatisfied than older employees because they demand more than
their jobs can provide. They postulated that older employees possess more seniority and work
experience enabling them to move easily into more rewarding and satisfying jobs.

56
One of the human resource management practices is the pay practice which deals with pay
normally, wage, salary and benefits etc. it has an important role in implementation strategies
(Iqbal et al., 2017). Ting (1997) declared the significant of pay that it is strong determinant of job
satisfaction. In the current study, an increasing trend of employees job satisfaction with
increasing monthly salary was observed until the range of 8001 - 11000 ETB where the
maximum level of satisfaction was recorded. Respondents waged with > 11000 ETB reported
lower mean level of satisfaction than others except who waged ≤ 5000 ETB.

In support of the finding of this study, salary has strong direct effect on job satisfaction (Iqbal et
al., 2017). Steijin (2004) also reported a positive effect of pay on job satisfaction. Likewise,
researchers observed the effect of human resource management practices and pay inequality on
workers’ job satisfaction (Mudor and Tooksoon, 2011). Despite of these facts, relatively low
level of satisfaction of employees waged the highest range (> 11000 ETB) in the University
might be related with their expectation relative to their educational attainment. According to the
salary scale of employees of higher education institutions in Ethiopia, those who earned > 11000
ETB are academic staffs who attained master’s degree and above. This was consistently seen in
satisfaction differences among employees with different educational level in this study. In Henry
Herzberg’s theory of motivation, less pay according to education of individual which do not
match with his/her skills or expertise is considered as dis satisfier. The motivators are called as
satisfiers which increases the job satisfaction like, competitive salary packages, attractive and
appealing reward system, these are the key motivators (Iqbal et al., 2017). Moreover, Ting
(1997) explained two different type of pay practices effect on job satisfaction; satisfaction with
pay itself and satisfaction with financial prospects in the upcoming.

Employees with work experience of ≤ 2 and > 6 years reported higher mean levels of job
satisfaction than those who had 3 – 6 years of experiences. A more nuanced reading of the
situation was provided by Mumford (2004) who found that employees work experience have a
U-shaped relationship with job satisfaction. In this regard, the author scrutinized that within the
first year of employment employee’s satisfaction declines and remains low for several years,
after which it increases and reasoned out that employees expectations are high at the time of
appointment, but when the expectations are not met, the resultant effect leads to a fall in job
satisfaction. During the initial stage of employment, new employees tend to be satisfied with

57
their jobs. This period involves the stimulation and challenge of developing skill and abilities
and the work may seem attractive just because it is new. Meanwhile, since expectations are not
met as thought, the level of job satisfaction remains low for some years. Then, job satisfaction
tends to increase with employees’ work experience. Employees with long service tend to adjust
their work values to the conditions of the workplace (Oshagbemi, 2003) and the job matches
their personal needs (Sarker et al., 2003), resulting in greater job satisfaction. In addition,
Oshagbemi (2003) argued that older employees may have jobs that use their skills better, work
under better job conditions, benefit from advancements and promotions, and appreciate fringe
benefits more than less experienced employees.

The mean job satisfaction scores were greater for employees with diploma (level III, IV) than
those with higher educational level (Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD degree holders). Although
studies conducted on the relationship between the level of education and job satisfaction
obtained inconsistent results (Spector, 1997), many studies agreed with the current result; the
higher the level of formal education, the more likely an employee is to be more dissatisfied with
the job. Kh Metle (2003) postulated one explanation of this is that better educated personnel have
higher expectations and believed that their work should provide greater fulfillment and
responsibility. However, some researchers highlighted a positive correlation between job
satisfaction and educational level (Ting, 1997; Loscocco, 2000). The reason for this is that
employees with higher education have more opportunities for work that they find stimulating and
they can use skills which are more challenging and creative.

58
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Summary and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of leadership styles on employees job
satisfaction in Debre Berhan University. Specifically, to ascertain if there was a dominant
leadership style used by leaders of the University, to evaluate the degree of employees’ job
satisfaction, to predict if a correlation exists between the three leadership styles and job
satisfaction, and to examine the effect of employees demographic characteristics on their job
satisfaction under the existing leadership.

The primary data were collected regarding demographic profile of the employees, leadership
styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and employees’ job satisfaction and the
study was guided by the research questions: 1) What kind of leadership style is frequently
practiced by leaders of Debre Berhan University? 2) To what degree employees of the University
are satisfied with the existing leadership? 3) Is there a relationship between the three leadership
styles (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) and employees’ job satisfaction? 4) To
what extent do the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire)
influence employees’ job satisfaction? 5) Do the employees’ demographic characteristics
influence job satisfaction under the existing leadership in Debre Berhan University?

A descriptive statistical analysis of the respondents profile in terms of demographic factors such
as age, gender, marital status, educational level among other factors (monthly salary and work
experience) produced useful statistics. Evaluation of respondents by age revealed individuals in
their 31 – 35 years to have formed a majority of the respondents (43.0%) while minority of the
respondents having been above 40 years old. Gender review also expressed male to have formed
slightly the majority of the respondents (52.2%). Higher percentage of the respondents recorded
as being married (54.4%) compared to the single category (45.6%). Distribution of the
respondents according to monthly salary revealed that minority of them (5.06%) waged between
8001 and 11000 ETB. Those who paid the lower (< 5000 ETB) and higher salary (> 11000 ETB)

59
scales of the University comprised the majority of the respondents with comparable proportion to
each other (36.1 and 36.4%, respectively).

To address research questions 1 and 2, the descriptive statistics with respect to identifying the
dominant leadership and the level of job satisfaction revealed that the leaders tend to be
perceived by employees as demonstrating transformational (M = 3.17) more often than
transactional (M = 2.70) and laissez-faire (M = 2.43) leadership behaviors, where employees
entertained an ambivalent level of satisfaction (M = 3.77).

Both Pearson’s correlation and multiple regression analyses furnished a means of evaluating the
direction and the strengths of correlations and the relative significance of each predictor
variables. In essence, findings related to research questions 3 and 4 and hypotheses-testing (H1a-
H1c) demonstrated there was strong evidence that job satisfaction has a higher degree of
correlation with transformational leadership than transactional and laissez-faire leaderships. A
positive influence of transactional leadership, but to a lesser extent than transformational
leadership, on job satisfaction was also observed. Whereas laissez-faire leadership was
negatively associated with job satisfaction.

This was also confirmed by partial regression coefficients that transformational leadership was a
relatively more important predictor of overall job satisfaction than others. The equation to predict
job satisfaction was: JS = 2.29 + 0.449TF + 0.254TS − 0.165LF; where JS = Job satisfaction;
TS = transactional leadership style; TF = transformational leadership style; LF = laissez-faire
leadership style. It should be noted with confidence that the findings regarding leadership styles
of Debre Berhan University leaders that are predictive of employees’ job satisfaction,
transformational leadership has a major effect on employees’ job satisfaction, in comparison to
transactional and laissez-faire leadership.

Considering the research question 5 or hypotheses H2a-H2f, it was found that individual
characteristics such as age, gender and marital status had insignificant effect on job satisfaction
(p > 0.05), whereas salary (p < 0.01), work experience (p < 0.01) and educational level (p < 0.05)
were further identified as significant determinants of job satisfaction. These distinctions and
similarities are very important to create stronger and productive workforces through minimizing
job dissatisfaction due to variations in personal features.

60
 In conclusion, answers to the research questions revealed that though each leadership style
significantly contribute in explaining employees’ job satisfaction, both transformational and
transactional leaderships were instrumental to achieving positive employees’ job satisfaction.
Transformational leadership was a dominant leadership style used by leaders in the University,
more relied on utilizing inspirational motivation facet of the leadership, rather than that
encourage a sense of moral obligation over laissez-faire and transactional leadership styles such
as rewards and feedback. This leads to employees of the University to be neutral about their job.
The levels of job satisfaction experienced by the employees in the University, was further
influenced by their demographic characteristics such as monthly salary, educational level and
work experience.

5.2. Recommendations

The following recommendations are made based on the findings of this study:

 Leaders in the University intending to exhibit transformational leadership should focus on the
transformational leadership behaviors of intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration than inspirational motivation to foster greater job satisfaction.
 The leaders should however put less emphasis on laissez-faire leadership behavior which is
found to be negatively related to employees’ job satisfaction when targeting to improve it.
 It is also vital to design leadership development programs like training for the leaders with a
focus on leadership behaviors that will lead to employees satisfaction. Developing such
programs is beneficial for developing an understanding about the essential required to be an
effective leader.
 Employees negatively perceived the salary that the University paid for them. Since the issue of
salary is out of the University’s mandate, it has to develop other benefit packages and
alternative incentives as they are the most important determinant of job satisfaction.

5.3. Recommendation for further Research

 The current research was focused only on the effect of leadership style on job satisfaction.
Therefore, researchers are suggested to consider other factors such as commitment, job
performance so on.

61
REFERENCES

Aarti, C., Seema, C., Bhawna, C. & Jyoti, C. 2013. Job satisfaction among bank employees: An
analysis of the contributing variables towards job satisfaction. International Journal of
Scientific & Technology, 2.

Adekunle, O. 2017. Relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job
satisfaction in tourism organization. Master’s Thesis, Department of Sports Management,
Economics and Sociology, Lithuanian Sports University.

Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M.M., Ali, I., Shaukat, Z., & Usman, A. 2010. Effects of Motivational
Factors on employees job satisfaction: a case study of University of the Punjab, Pakistan.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(3), 70-80.

Akhila, N. 2018. Impact of leadership styles on employee job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: A study in the construction sector in India. Master’s thesis & specialist
projects. The faculty of the school of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Western Kentucky
University, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Al-Sayah, F.A. 2011. Exploring the relationship between the perceived leadership behaviours
and job satisfaction at the Libyan petrochemical companies. Durham theses, Durham
University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3318/.

Al-Zubi, H.A. 2010. A study of the relationship between organizational justice and job
satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12), 102-109.

Amanchukwu, R. N., Stanley G. J. & Ololube N. P. 2015. A review of leadership theories,

principles and styles and their relevance to educational management. Management 5(1), 6-14.

Amin, M., Shah, S.& Tatlah, A. I. 2013. Impact of Principals/Directors’ Leadership Styles on
Job Satisfaction of 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.

Amune, J.B. 2014. A comparative study of the determinants of job satisfaction among male and
female librarians in public university libraries in Edo State of Nigeria. International Journal
of Education and Research, 2(7), 649-660.

Andrews, D., Richard, D., Robinson, P., & Celano, J. 2011. The influence of staff nursem
perception of leadership style on satisfaction with leadership: A cross-sectional survey of
pediatric nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49, 1103–m1111.

62
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 2012. Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.

Arzi, S & Farahbod, L. 2014. The Impact of Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction: A Study of
Iranian Hotels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 6 (3), 70-
92.

Avolio, B. & Bass, B. 2004. Multifactor leadership questionnaire.U.S.A. Mindgarden, Inc.

Bakan, I., Buyukbese, T., Ersahan, B. & Sezer, B. 2014. Effects of job satisfaction on job
performance and occupational commitment. International Journal of Management &
Information Technology, 9(1), 1472- 1480.

Balgobind, V. 2002. The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Subordinate Job

Satisfaction. MA, University of South Africa.

Bartolo, K. & Furlonger, B. 2014. Leadership and job satisfaction among aviation fire fighters in
Australia. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1): 87-97.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. 1991. Transformational Leadership Development Manual for MLQ.
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press: New York.

Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. (3rd
ed). NY: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness: Through
Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1997. Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden Inc.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. 2004. Multifactor leadership questionnaire manual and sampler set.
Mind Garden, Inc.

Bass, B.M. 2008. Handbook of Leadership, Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. (4th
ed.). NY: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. 2006. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind
Garden Inc.

Bekele Shibru. 2011. Effects of transformational leadership on subordinates job satisfaction in

Leather Company in Ethiopia. International journal of business management and economics
research, 2(5), 334-344.

63
Bennett, T. 2009. A study of the management leadership style preferred by its subordinates.
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication, and Conflict, 12(2), 1–18.

Bennett, T. 2011. A study of the management leadership style preferred by its subordinates.
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication, and Conflict, 12(2), 1–18. Retrieved
from http://www.alliedacademies.org/Public/Journals/ JournalDetails.aspx?jid=11

Bhatti, N., Murtza, G., Shaikh, N., Aamir, M., & Shaikh, F. 2012. The Impact of Autocratic and
Democratic Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction. International Business Research Vol. 5,
No. 2. www.ccsenet.org/ibr.

Bodla, A. M., Nawaz, M. M. 2010. Comparative study of full range leadership model among
faculty members in public and private sector higher education institutes and Universities.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 208-214.

Bolden, R. 2004. What is leadership? Research Report 1, Leadership South West, Centre for
Leadership Studies. University of Exeter.

Bolden, R., Hawkins, B., Gosling, J., & Taylor, S. 2011. Exploring Leadership. United States:
Published by Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, & Frey, D. 2013. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction,
and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly,
24(1), 270–283.

Brown, D. & Keeping, L. 2006. Elaborating the Construct of Transformational Leadership: The
Role of Affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 245-272.

Bryant, S.E. 2013. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing
and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
9(4), 32-44.

Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods. (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. NY: Harper and Row.

Bushra Fatima, U. A. a. N. A., 2011. Effect of transformational leadership on employee’s job

satisfaction and organizational commitment in banking sector of Lahore (Pakistan).
International journal of business and social science, 2(18), 261-267.

Charmoz, K.C. 2005. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through

Qualitative Analyses. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

64
Chaudhry, A. Q., & Javed, H. 2012. Impact of Transactional and Laissez Faire Leadership Style
on Motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 258-264.

Cherry, K. 2017. What Is Laissez-Faire Leadership? Retrieved from Very Well:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-laissez-faire-leadership-2795316.

Chowdhury, G.R. 2014. A study on the impact of leadership styles on employee motivation and
commitment, doctoral dissertation, Padmashree D.Y. Patil University.

Chukwura, F.A. 2017. The impact of elected leadership styles and behaviors on employee
motivation and job satisfaction. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and theses database. (10262875).

Cresswell, J.W. 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Davis, K. & Nestrom J.W. 1985. Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior, (7th ed.).
McGraw Hill, New York. pp. 109.
Dawit, D., Getachew, L., & Ashenafi, A. 2017. Factor analysis of academic staff satisfaction in
Dire Dawa University, Ethiopia. Science Journal of Education, 2, 71- 81.

Debre Berhan University Annual Magazine 2019.

Debre Berhan University Strategic Plan 2015/16 – 2019/20.

Dessler, G. 2012. Human resource management (5th ed.). New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

Dixon, M.L. & Hart, L.K. 2010. The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group
effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 52-69.

Doyle, E.. 2001. Classical leadership. http://www.infed.org/leadeship/traditional leadership.htm

Drafke, M.W. & Kossen, S. 2002. The human side of organisations. (8th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Durst, S. & V. DeSantis. 1997. The Determinants of job satisfaction among Federal, State, and
Local Government Employees’. State & Local Government Review, 29(1), 7-16.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. 2005a. From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit
leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(4), 659-676.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. 2005b. The moderating role of individual differences in the relation
between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational
identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 569-589.

65
Esubalew Kassa. 2017. Assessing the effect of contemporary leadership styles and their
consequences on job satisfaction: A case of ethio telecom. Master’s thesis, Department of
Management, College of Business & Economics, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Fennell, D. 2012. Ecotourism Programmed Planning. NY: CABI.

Field, D. L., & Herold, D.M. 1997. Using the leadership practices inventory to measure
transformational and transactional leadership. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
57, 569-580.

Fikadu, M., 2010. The relationship between leadership style and staff job satisfaction at the
college of education, Addis Ababa University. The International journal of education, (1).

Filimon Rezene. 2015. The impact of work-life conflict on job satisfaction in the banking
industry focusing on ten selected banks in Addis Ababa. Master’s thesis, Department of
Management, College of Business & Economics, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Furtner, M., Baldegger, U., & Rauthmann, J. 2012. Leading yourself and leading others: Linking
self-leadership to transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (ahead of print), 1–14.

Gehring, D.R. 2007. Applying Traits Theory of Leadership to Project Management. Project
Management Institute, 38(1), 44-54.

George & Jones. 2008. Understanding and managing organizational behavior, 5th edition.
Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Ghiasi M. & Limoni S.T. 2015. Investigating the factors affecting the level of job satisfaction
among the librarians at Central Library of Islamic Azad University of District 3. Library
Philosophy and Practice, 1350, 1-3.

Ghose, R. 2014. A study on the impact of leadership styles on employee motivation and
commitment: an empirical study of selected organizations in corporate sector, doctor of
philosophy.

Gill, R. 2011. Theory and practice of leadership. Sage south Asia edition: sage publication.

Gillespie, N. & Mann L. 2004. Transformational leadership and shared values: The building
blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.

Glanz, B. 2002. Handle with Care: motivating and retaining employees. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

66
Glisson, C. and Durick, M. 2000. Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 (1), 61-81.

Greenberg, R & Baron, R. 2013. Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Griffin, M. A, Malcolm, G. P. & West, M. A. 2001. Job satisfaction and teamwork: The role of
supervisor support. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 22(6), 537-550.

Gujarati, D. 2004. Basic Econometrics, (4th ed). McGraw−Hill Companies.

Gumusluoglu, L. & Ilsev, A. 2009. Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational

innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, (461-473).

Hamidifar, A. 2010. A study of relationship between leadership styles and employees’ job
satisfaction at Islamic Azad University branches in Tehran, Iran. AU-GSB e-J 3: 45-58.

Haque, A., & Aston, J. 2016. A relationship between occupational stress and organizational
commitment of IT sector’s employees in contrasting economies. Polish Journal of
Management Studies, 14(1), 95-105.

Heery, E. & Noon, M. 2011. Dictionary of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford

House, J. 2015. Leadership Styles. Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration.

Ed. California: Sage Publications.

Iqbal, S., Guohao L. & Akhtar S. 2017. Effects of job organizational culture, benefits, salary on
job satisfaction ultimately affecting employee retention. Review Pub. Admin. Manag., 5(3),
1000229.

Jacobsen, C.B. 2013. Leadership (motivation in Danish High School, EEFMD EQUIS
Accredited, AHRHUS University.

James, A. O., Ogbonna, G.I. 2013. Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership Theories:
Evidence in Literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2),
335-361.

Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2009. Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation:
The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18.

Kara, D, Uysal, M, Sirgy, M & Lee, G. 2013. The effect of leadership style on employee well-
being in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34(2), 9-18.

Karadag, E. 2015. Leadership and organizational outcomes: a meta-analysis of empirical

studies. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.

67
Kellerman, B. 2012. The end of leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Kh Metle, M. 2003. The Impact of Education on Attitudes of Female Government Employees.

The Journal of Management Development, 22 (7/8), 603-626.

Khan, V., Haroon, M., Majid, S., Hasnain, A., Mariam, A. 2012. Relationship of Leadership
Styles, Employees Commitment and Organization Performance. European Journal of
Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 49.

Kim, B., Lee, G., & Carlson, K. 2010. An examination of the nature of the relationship between
leader-member exchange (LMX) and turnover intent at different organizational levels.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 591– 597.

Kippenberger, T. 2002. Leadership styles. Capstone Publishing, United Kingdom.

Kothari, C., 2004. Research methodology and methods. 2nd ed. New Delhi: New age
International limited, publishers.

Kumar, N., & Singh V. 2011. Job Satisfaction and Its Correlates. Social Behavior and
Personality, 39(2), 251-264.

Kumari, N., 2011. Job satisfaction of employees at the workplace. European journal of business
and management, 3(4).

Kuo, C. 2004. Research on impacts of team leadership on team effectiveness. The Journal of
American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 266-277.

Lai, C. 2009. A comparative analysis of the factors determining motivational level of employees
working in Commercial Banks in Kohat, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa. International Journal of
Business and Management 5(4), 233-247.

Leapley-Portscheller, C.I. 2008. Leadership style and adequate yearly progress: a correlational
study of effective principal leadership. Doctor of Education dissertation, University of
Phoenix, Arizona.

Leonard, K. 2019. The definition of high turnover rate.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-high-turnover-rate-11272.html.

Leonard, S., Lewis, R., Freedman, A. M. & Passmore, J. 2013. The role of psychology in
leadership, change and organization development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Li, C & Hung, C. 2009. An examination of the mediating role of person-job fit in relations
between information literacy and work outcomes. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(5),
306- 318.

68
Locke, E. A. 1976. Organizational Behavior: Effect in the Workplace. Annual Review of
Psychology.

Loscocco, K.A. 2000. Reactions to Blue-Collar Work: A Comparison of Women and Men. Work
and Occupations, 17 (2), 152-178.

Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. 2013. Leadership - Theory, Application, Skill Developement 3e.

Marasinghe, M.P.L.R. & Wijayaratne A. 2018. The Impact of Gender Differences on Job
Satisfaction of University Library Professionals. Journal of the University Librarians
Association of Sri Lanka, 21(2), 1-20.

Mends, F. & Stander, M.W. 2011. Positive organization: The role of work behavior in work
engagement and retention. SA Journal of industrial psychology.

Metwally, A, El-bishbishy, N, & Nawar, Y. 2014. The impact of transformational leadership

style on employee satisfaction. The Business and Management Review, 5(3), 32-42

Mohamad, M. S. 2012. Transformational Leadership and Employees’ Job Satisfaction and

Commitment: A Structural Equation Investigation. Journal of American Science, 8, 11-19.

Money, Jr., R. 2011. Transformational leadership as a success factor in a merger (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

Mosadeghrad, A. M. 2003. The role of participative management (suggestion system) in hospital

effectiveness and efficiency. Research in Medical Sciences, 8(3), 85-89.

Mudor, H. & Tooksoon, P. 2011. Conceptual framework on the relationship between human
resource management practices, job satisfaction, and turnover. J. Econ. Behav. Stud., 2, 41-
49.

Mullins, L.J. 2002. Management and organisational behaviour. (6th ed). London: Financial Times
/Prentice-Hall.

Mullins, L.J. 2007. Management and Organizational Behavior. (8th ed). London: Financial
Times /Prentice-Hall.

Mullins, L.J. 2010. Management and Organizational Behavior. (9th ed.). London: Financial
Times/ Prentice Hall.

Mumford, M.D., Todd, E. M., Higgs, C., & McIntosh, T. 2017. Cognitive skills and leadership
performance: The nine critical skills. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 24-39.

Munaf, S. 2011. Relationship of Transformational, Transactional and Passive/Avoidant

Management Style with Achievement Motivation of Teaching Faculties of Selected

69
 Educational Institutions of Pakistan. International Conference on E- business, Management
and Economics, 3, 93-96.

Nadjla, H. & Hasan A.R. 2009. Gender differences and job satisfaction of the Iranian public
librarians. Studies in Library and Information Science, 16(3), 112-191.

Nanjundes, W. T.S. & Swamy, D.R. 2014. Leadership styles. Advances in Management 7(2).

Nebiat, N. & Asdesach, D. 2013. Relationship between leadership style of nurses managers and
nurses job satisfaction in Jimma Unversty specialized hospital. Ethiopia journal of health
science, 3(1), 49-58.

Ngozi, R., Jones G. & Ololube P. 2015. A review of leadership theories, principles and styles
and their relevance to educational management. Management, 5(1), 6-14.

Nidadhavolu, A. 2018. Impact of leadership styles on employee job satisfaction and

organizational commitment: A study in the construction sector in India. Masters Theses &
Specialist Projects. Graduate School, Western Kentucky University. Paper 2090.
Northouse, P.G. 2007. Leadership: Theory and practice. (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Northouse, P. G. 2010. Leadership: theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Northouse, P. 2013. Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.

Northouse, P. 2016. Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.

Ogunlana, E.K., Okunlaya R.O.A., Ajani F.O., Okunoye T. & Oshinaike A.O. 2013. Indices of
job stress and job satisfaction among academic librarians in selected federal universities in
South West Nigeria. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 60, 212-218.

Ololube. 2013. Educational management, planning, and supervision: Model for effective
implementation. Spring field publishers, Owerri.

Omar, W. A. W., & Hussin, F. 2013. Transformational Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction
Relationship: A Study of Structural Equation Modeling. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences,3.

Onuoha, U.D., Samuel, T.D. & Ojo, A.I. 2014. Gender and job satisfaction: a study of library
staff in private university libraries in Ogun state Nigeria. Journal of New Media and Mass
Communication, 1(1), 12-19.

70
Oshagbemi, T. & Ocholi, S.A. 2003. Leadership styles and behavior profiles of managers.
Journal of Management Development, 25(8): 748-762.

Pallant, J. 2003. SPSS Survival manual. A step by step Guide to data Analysis using SPSS for
Windows (Version 10 and 11). Open University. Philadelphia.

Pereira, C., & Gomes, J. 2012. The strength of human resource practices and transformational
leadership: impact on organizational performance. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23, 4301–4318.

Portoghese, I., Galletta, M. and Battistelli, A. 2011. The effects of work-family conflict and
community embeddedness on employee satisfaction: The role of leader-member exchange.
International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (4), 39-48.

Rajasekar, D. a. B. K., 2014. an imperical evaluation on job satisfaction of employees towards

Chennai logistics sector. Indian journal of applied research, 4(2).

Riaz, A. & Haider M. 2010. Role of transformational and transactional leadership on job
satisfaction and career satisfaction. Bus. Econ. Horiz, 1, 29-38.

Riaz, A. & Haider M.H. 2013. Role of Transformational and Transactional leadership on job
satisfaction and Career satisfaction. Business Economic Horizontal 1 (1): 29-38.
Robbins, S & Judge, T. 2010. Organizational Behavior (13th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.

Robbins, S.P. 2005. Essentials of Organizational Behavior (8th ed). NJ: Upper
Saddle River, Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Rothfelder, K, Ottenbacher, C, & Harrington, J. 2012. The impact of transformational,

transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in the German
hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12(4), 201-214.

Rowe, W. G. 2007. Cases in leadership. Thousand Oaks Publications, CA.

Ruth W/Tenay. 2014. The Effect of leadership styles on employee job satisfaction: The case of
PEPFAR implementing University Partners. Master’s thesis, Department of Management,
College of Business & Economics, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Saboe, K. N., Taing, M. U., Way, J. O., & Johnson. R. E. 2015. Examining the unique mediators
that underlie the effect of different dimensions of transformational leadership. Journal of
leadership and organizational studies, 22 (2), 175 -186.

71
Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. 2012. Transformational leadership and its predictive effects on
leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 186–
197.

Salami, A. 2012. The Challenges of Leadership and Governance in Africa. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 2(9), 141.

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.

Sarker, S.J., Crossman, A. & Chinmeteepituck, P. 2003. The Relationship of Age and Length of
Service with Job Satisfaction: An examination of hotel employees in Thailand. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 18(7/8), 745-758.

Schaufeli, W. B.Taris, T.W., & van Rhenen, W. 2008. Workaholism, burnout and work
engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being. An
international review. Applied Psychology.

Sekaran, U. 2003. Research Methods for Business: A Skills Building Approach. (4th
ed). NY: John Wiley.

Sharma, B. & Bhaskar, S. 2017. Determinants of Job Satisfaction among Engineers in a Public
Sector Undertaking. Journal of Management, 20, 23-34.

Siddika, M. 2012. The Handbook of employee benefits: design, funding, and administration.
USA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Simic, I. 1998. Transformational leadership: the key to successful management of organizational

changes. Factas Univasitas, 1 (6), 49 -55.

Singh, J., a. J.M., 2013. A study of employee’s job satisfaction and its impacts of their
performance. Journal of Indian research, 1(4), 105-111.

Sledge S., Miles A.K. & Coppage S. 2008. What role does culture play? A look at motivation
and job satisfaction among hotel workers in Brazil. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(9), 1667-1682.

Spector, P.E. 1997. Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Spector, P.E. 2000. Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Research and Practice. (2nd ed).
Boston: John Wiley and Sons.

Spector, P.E. 2008. Industrial and Organisational Behavior. (5th ed.). NJ: Johnn Wiley and
Sons.

72
Spector, E. 2014. Job satisfaction: application, assessment, cause, and consequences. USA.
SAGE Publications, Inc.

Spitzbart, E. 2013. Impact of leadership style (Transformational and Transactional Leadership)

on employee performance and mediating role of job satisfaction study of private school
(educator) in Pakistan, Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(3), 55-64.

Straker, D. 2010. Managing Minds. (2nd ed). SyQuest Press.

from:http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/transactional_leadership.htm.

Sundi, K. 2013. Effect of Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership on

Employee Performance of Konawe Education Department at Southeast Sulawesi Province.

Swatee, S & Srivastava, R. 2012. Driving Employee Engagement in Nationalized Banks in India,
International Conference on Economics, Business Innovation, 38(2), 131 – 134

Tang, T. L. & Talpade, M. 2001. Sex differences in satisfaction with pay and co-workers: faculty
and staff at a public institution of higher education. Public Personnel Management, 28(3),
345-349.

Tesfaye Sancho. 2019. The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employees’ Job Satisfaction in
Salale University. Master’s thesis, Department of Management, College of Business &
Economics, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Timothy, C. O., Andy, T. O., Victoria, O. A., Idowu, A. N. 2011. Effects of Leadership Style on
Organizational Performance: A Survey of Selected Small Scale Enterprise in Ikosi-Ketu
Council Development Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and
Management Research, 1(7), 100-111.

Ting, Y. 1997. Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public Pers.
Manage., 26, 313-334.

Voon, M, Lo, M, Ngui, K & Ayob, N. 2011. The Influence of Leadership Styles on Employees’
Job Satisfaction in Public Sector Organizations in Malaysia. International Journal of
Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24-36.

Wiza, M., & Hlanganipai, N. 2014. The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee
Organizational Commitment Higher Learning Institutions. Rome-Italy: Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, 5(4), 2039-9340.

Yukl, G. 2011. Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Yukl, G.A. 2013. Leadership in Organizations, (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

73
Zhang, H., Everett, A.M., Elkin, G., & Cone, M.H. 2012. Authentic leadership theory
development: Theorizing on Chinese philosophy. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18, 587-605.

Zikmund, W. G. 2003. Business Research Methods. (7th ed). Mason, Ohio: Thomson-South-
Western.

74
APPENDICES

Appendix A. Questionnaire

DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Questionnaire for employees in DBU

Directions

The main purpose of this Questionnaire is to gather information on the impact of leadership style
on employees’ job satisfaction: the case Debre Berhan University. Thus, your responses will
have much contribution to the success of the intended research. Therefore, the outcome of this
study depends on your honest response.

The Questionnaire has three parts. The first part touches Questions to your Demographic
characteristics. The second part is Questions regarding the Leadership Styles and the third part is
Questions regarding employees’ job satisfaction of DBU.

Remember:

 Please make sure that you have answered all the questions.
 when you fill in the questionnaire, there is no need to consult others please fill it by
yourself
 You do not need to write your name
Thank you for your cooperation in advance!

Gebretsadik Estifanos

75
Part 1. Demographic aspects

Direction: The following questions are concerned with your demographic aspects. Completion of
this questionnaire is voluntary and confidentiality of information is assured. Here you are
requested to answer the following questions by putting (√) or (x) mark in the box, and write your
response for open-ended questions on the space provided.

1. Sex

Male Female

2. Age:- _____________

3. How long you have worked in Debre Berhan University (in Year): _____________

4. Amount of your monthly income (in Birr): _____________

5. Marital status:

Single Married

Divorce Widowed

6. Educational level:

Diploma Masters

First Degree Ph.D. and above

76
Part 2. Leadership Questionnaire

Direction: This Questionnaire designed to help you describe your leader’s (supervisor’s)
leadership styles, as you perceived it. Place a tick (√) or a mark (x) in the box (cell) that
represents your appropriate level of rating to judge how frequently each statement fits your
leader (supervisor).

Ratings Not at all Once in a Sometimes Fairly often Frequently if not

while always
Assigned 0 1 2 3 4
weight

Rates
No Statements 0 1 2 3 4
1. My supervisor provides me with assistance in exchange for my
efforts
2. My supervisor re-examines hypotheses to question whether they
are appropriate
3. My supervisor fails to interfere until problems become serious
4. My supervisor focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes,
exceptions and deviations from standards
5. My supervisor Avoids getting involved when important issues
arise
6. My supervisor talks about his/her most important values and
beliefs
7. My supervisor is absent when needed
8. My supervisor seeks differing perspectives when solving
problems
9. My supervisor talks optimistically about the future
10. My supervisor instills pride in me for being associated with
him/her
11. My supervisor discusses in specific terms who is responsible for
achieving performance targets
12. My supervisor waits for things to go wrong before taking action
13. 5My supervisor talks enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished
14. My supervisor specifies the importance of having a strong sense
of purpose

77
15. My supervisor spends time teaching and coaching
16. My supervisor makes clear what I can expect to receive when
performance goals are achieved
17. My supervisor shows that he/she is a firm believer in ″If it isn't
broken, don’t fix it"
18. My supervisor go beyond self-interest for the good of the group
19. My supervisor treats me as an individual rather than just as a
member of a group
20. My supervisor demonstrates that problems must become chronic
before he/she takes action
21. My supervisor acts in ways that build my respect for him/her
22. My supervisor concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with
mistakes, complaints, and failures
23. My supervisor considers the moral and ethical consequences of
decisions
24. My supervisor keeps track of all mistakes
25. My supervisor displays a sense of power and confidence
26. My supervisor articulates a compelling vision of the future
27. 7My supervisor directs his/her attention toward failures to meet
standards
28. My supervisor is avoided making decisions
29. My supervisor considers me as having different needs, abilities,
and aspirations from others
30. My supervisor gets me to look at problems from many different
angles
31. My supervisor helps me to develop my strengths
32. My supervisor Suggests new ways of looking at how to
complete assignments
33. My supervisor delays responding to urgent questions
34. My supervisor emphasizes the importance of having a collective
sense of mission
35. My supervisor expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations
36. My supervisor expresses confidence that goals will be achieved

78
Part 3: Questions on job satisfaction
The following statements are designed to assess your satisfaction. Read each statement carefully
and respond by circling the level of scale that describes your satisfaction. The scales are defined
as follows:

Ratings Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree very

very much moderately slightly slightly moderately much

Assigned 1 2 3 4 5 6
weight

Rates
No Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 1 I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.

2. 2I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do

3. Raises are too few and far between

4. 3I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about

what they pay

5. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion.

6. 4There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.

7. 5Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being

promoted

8. 6People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places

9. I like my supervisor.

10. 7My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of

subordinates

11. 8My supervisor is unfair to me.

12. 9My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job

13. There are benefits we do not have which we should have.

14. 1I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive.

79
15. 1The benefits we receive are as good as most other
organizations offer.

16. 1The benefit package he has is equitable

17. I do not feel my efforts are reward the way they should be.

18. 1When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I

should.

19. 1I do not feel that the work is appreciated

20. 1There are few rewards for those who work here

21. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape

22. 1I have too much to do at work.

23. 1I Have too much paperwork

24. 1Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job
difficult

25. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the

incompetence of people

26. I like the people I work with.

27. 2I enjoy my coworkers

28. 2There is too much bickering and fighting at work.

29. My job is enjoyable.

30. 2I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.

31. 2I like doing the things I do at work.

32. 2I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.

33. The goals of this organization are not clear to me.

34. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the
organization.

35. Communications seem good within this organization.

36. Work assignments are not fully explained

80
Appendix B. Tables

Appendix Table 1: Two-sample t test regarding effect of sex on job satisfaction

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group | Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
Female| 151 3.755703 .0140839 .173066 3.727874 3.783531
Male | 165 3.781818 .0219005 .2813165 3.738575 3.825061
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
combined | 316 3.769339 .0132689 .2358728 3.743232 3.795446
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
diff | -.0261155 .0265653 -.0783839 .026153
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff = mean(Male) - mean(Female) t = -0.9831
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 314

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(T < t) = 0.1632 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.3263 Pr(T > t) = 0.8368

Appendix Table 2: Two-sample t test regarding effect of marital status on job satisfaction

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group | Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
Single | 144 3.743441 .0249358 .2992297 3.694151 3.792732
Married | 172 3.791021 .0124295 .163011 3.766486 3.815556
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
combined | 316 3.769339 .0132689 .2358728 3.743232 3.795446
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
diff | -.0475793 .0265495 -.0998167 .0046582
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff = mean(Single) - mean(Married) t = -1.7921
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 314

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(T < t) = 0.0370 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0741 Pr(T > t) = 0.9630

81
Appendix Table 3: ANOVA result regarding effect of educational level on job satisfaction

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between groups .446735051 3 .148911684 2.72 0.0016
Within groups 17.0786 312 .054739103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 17.5253351 315 .055635984

Appendix Table 4: ANOVA result regarding effect of age on job satisfaction

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between groups .325196498 3 .108398833 1.97 0.1190
Within groups 17.2001386 312 .055128649
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 17.5253351 315 .055635984

Appendix Table 5: ANOVA result regarding effect of salary on job satisfaction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between groups .854005545 3 .284668515 5.33 0.0014
Within groups 16.6713295 312 .053433749
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 17.5253351 315 .055635984

Appendix Table 6: ANOVA result regarding effect of work experience on job satisfaction

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between groups .91528748 3 .305095827 5.73 0.0008
Within groups 16.6100476 312 .053237332
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 17.5253351 315 .055635984

82