A Quantitative Research Proposal:Evaluating Transformational Leadership on Job Satisfaction According to Gender

Organizations are looking to inspirational leaders to create and maintain high-performing workforces and to achieve positive change.  Transformational leadership theory, as described by Burns (1978), affects organizational change through the leader’s ability to help employees focus on the mission, vision, and goals through motivation, inspiration, and integrity. Previous research shows that there is a correlation between employee engagement and job satisfaction (Barik & Kochar, 2017) (Poloski & Hernaus, 2015). Organizations need to have a better understanding of how effective leadership styles increase engagement and satisfaction.  Transformational leaders applying Bass’s dimension of individual consideration should understand how their leadership style is perceived by the different genders and adjust accordingly.

The questions for this research proposal are:

H_¹: Job satisfaction is higher among those under transformational leadership.

H_²: Job satisfaction under transformational leadership varies by gender.

H_०: The null hypothesis is that gender is not a moderating influence on job satisfaction and transformational leadership.

The purpose of this paper is to research the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction with the moderating effect of gender. The impact for the human resources development field is to contribute to the research of gender and leadership and to help organizations and professionals better understand the correlation of leadership styles on job satisfaction based on gender so they can forge new perspectives on leadership.

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership engages followers to aspire and perform at higher levels to reach greater outcomes than initially expected (Burns, 1978).  Its distinction requires leadership to elevate the level of consciousness regarding strategies to achieve and meet goals, rise above self-interest through valuing organizational objectives, and incorporates advancing the need level on Maslow’s hierarchy (Bass, 1985).  It is widely considered an effective management practice for use in various capacities (Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman, & Xie, 2013).

Characteristics of transformational leaders include strategic, innovative thinking, gaining the trust and confidence of followers, along with serving as mentors and role models (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, van Engen, 2003).  Followers seek to meet leaders’ expectations, provide full leadership support, and emulate leadership (Bass, 1985).  It is a fluid, dynamic leadership trait that is most effective when the leader effectively diagnoses the needs of followers and displays the appropriate level of engagement for the situation (Tepper et al., 2018).

There are six constructs to measure transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass, 1988).  The remaining constructs are Charismatic-Inspirational leadership, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception, and Passive-Avoidant leadership (Bass, 1988). According to Avioli, Bass, & Jung (1999), Charisma-inspirational leadership is defined by followers that are energized to identify with the leader, including the leader’s vision and purpose.  Intellectual Stimulation occurs when followers are challenged by leadership regarding conventional thinking to explore new methods of problem-solving (Avioli, Bass, & Jung, 1999).  Individualized Consideration requires leadership to focus on the needs and potential of each follower, and Contingent Reward details expectations to provide rewards to followers that meet performance goals (Avioli, Bass, & Jung, 1999).  Active Management-by-Exception involves task maintenance and interventions.  Lastly, Passive-Avoidant leadership eludes making decisions and tends to intervene after problems have escalated into corrective action (Avioli, Bass, & Jung, 1999).

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was used by Bass to create the constructs to measure transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).  It includes subscales for transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership (Eagly et al., 2003).  Despite some critical analysis, it remains a commonly used instrument for such purposes (Eagly et al., 2003).

Transformational Leadership Outcomes on Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is generally defined as an intellectual concept regarding individuals’ attitudes towards their job or employees’ affective reactions to an organization (Yildiz & Simsek, 2016; Yukl, 2008).   Employees have higher job satisfaction when their leaders create a climate for change.  An environment that has open communication and an outlet for creative thinking about changes in an organization led to higher performance and job satisfaction (Poel et al., 2012).  Evidence suggests a “significant positive relationship between all components of transformational leadership and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment” (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2015). Several studies purport that effective leaders whom have employees that report higher job satisfaction portray multiple behaviors such as: maintaining interdependent relationships with their followers, trust, personal recognition, support; lowering followers stress and ensuring team fit; meaningfulness, job efficacy, self-esteem, and energy (Hobman et al., 2011; Klaic et al., 2018; Rowold et al., 2014). This research has shown that job satisfaction has a positive correlation with transformational leadership

Transformational Leadership and Gender

Leaders tend to be grouped as either transformational or transactional. Transactional leaders guide followers on what to do for the essence of attaining individual and firm objectives while transformational leaders motivate followers to forego their desires for the interests of the firm and are in an excellent position to have an outstanding impact on their supporters. Transformational leaders are given respect, honor, and acknowledgment through their charisma, quality, and their vision, as stated by Chang (2016) alongside Stelmoliene & Endriulaitience, (2015). Moreover, constant support and coordination from inspirational leaders to achieve challenging objectives motivate followers to add effort that goes beyond their natural ability.

An extensive study was conducted to recognize the distinctions between females and males based on transformational leadership. Both have distinct styles of leadership. Women are flexible to leadership and are less autocratic than men (Sandberg, 2015). Women tend to be individually oriented, while men are job oriented. Because of this, many studies find that women are more effective transformational leaders than men.

Discrepancies have been identified in performance when gender is not altered (Ng, Lam & Feldman, 2016). In a world full of men, the outcome ratings of females tend to be underscored and overscored when it comes to males. Universally, research on female/male job outcomes project mixed results. Although differences between the gender leadership styles were documented, there is no significant evidence that leaders are more or less successful based on gender along.  Building upon Alimo-Metcalfe’s 1995 research, Appelbaum (2003) concluded that female leadership styles are not less effective and “can be more effective when the transformational leadership style is employed.”

There has been a debate that transformational leadership and information are vital to the growth of firms. Femininity, masculinity, and transformational leadership are positively associated with the ethical traits of leaders (Walker & Aritz, 2015). The relationship between transformational leadership and ethics is intact for individuals lower on femininity basing on those higher on femininity. However, current traits in many firms are to establish a family framework that will enable employees to have the urge to perform with passion (Jones & Jones, 2017). Hence, for the essence of transformational tendency, both females and male managers have to motivate the expression of feminine traits of being nurturing the same way an exemplary family requires maternal and paternal characteristics in the family; hence an organization requires a leader that contains both the feminine and masculine qualities.

Figure1: Theoretical Framework

Methodology

The methodology is based on post-positivist epistemology, recognizing that observations can be errant and that all theories are ever-changing (Ryan, 2006).  For this cross-sectional study, The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)™ (Mind Garden (n.d), 2020) will be used to survey a convenience sampling of graduate students to measure the leadership style of a direct manager. The MLQ™ has been systematically tested for validity and reliability (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Sampling

The convenience sample will be students who are enrolled in the HR program for Spring 2020.

Data Collection

Members of the program will access an online survey containing questions from the MQL™.  The survey will be open for 14 days, and reminder notifications sent in increments of four days.  Surveys are considered complete when submitted.  Results will be entered into excel and Simple Interactive Statistical Analysis software for analysis (Uitenbroek, 1997).

Instrumentation

Students are asked questions from the transformational leadership section of the MQL for a rating of their manager.  Using a similar Likert rating scale, the students will choose from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Frequently or always) for their ratings.

Data Analysis

Data will be analyzed for T-testing, regression, and correlation using the online Simple Interactive Statistical Analysis (SISA) software (Uitenbroek, D. G., 1997).

Limitations and Delimitations

The limitations of this study are that one leadership style is considered exclusively, while organizational culture and structure are ignored.  In addition, the sample size is limited. The delimitation of this study is that only one section was subject to survey. The results of this study are applicable to the general population due to the diverse cross-section of age and professional backgrounds of survey participants. Further research should be conducted outside the convenience sample to secure a broader sample size.

References

Appelbaum, S.H., Audet, L., & Miller, J.C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 43-51. https://doi:10.1108/09649429510146901.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Barik, S., & Kochar, A. (2017, April). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement: A literature review. International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science, 5(4), 33-38. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/53002195

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership: good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2

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

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B. M. (1988). The inspirational process of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 7, 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb051688

Burns, I. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Chang, (2016). Multilevel transformational leadership and management innovation. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 37(2), 265-288.

de Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & van der Zee, K. I. (2012). Climate control? The relationship between leadership, climate for change, and work outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(4), 694–713.

Eagly, A., H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformation, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569

Hobman, E. V., Jackson, C. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Martin, R. (2011). The effects of transformational leadership behaviors on follower outcomes: An identity-based analysis. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20(4), 553–580.

Jones, E. L., & Jones, R. C. (2017). Leadership style and career success of women leaders in                     nonprofit organizations. Advancing Women in Leadership, 37.

Klaic, A., Burtscher, M. J., & Jonas, K. (2018). Person-supervisor fit, needs-supplies fit, and team fit as mediators of the relationship between dual-focused transformational leadership and well-being in scientific teams. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 669–682.

Leedy, P. D., Ormrod, J. E., & Johnson, L. R. (2019). Practical Research: Planning and Design.                New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., & Xie, Z. (2013). Spotlight on the followers: An examination of moderators of relationships between transformational leadership and subordinates’ citizenship and taking charge. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 225–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12014

Mind Garden (n.d). (2020, January 20). Retrieved from www.mindgarden.com.

Ng, T. W.  H., Lam, S. S. K., and Feldman, D.  C. (2016).  Organizational citizenship behavior                 and counterproductive work behavior: Do males and females differ? Journal of Vocational                   Behavior, 93, 11-32

Rowold, J., Borgmann, L., & Bormann, K. (2014). Which leadership constructs are important         for predicting job satisfaction, affective commitment, and perceived job performance in profit versus nonprofit organizations? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(2), 147–164.

Ryan, A. B. (2006). Post-positivist approaches to research. In Researching and Writing your    Thesis: a guide for postgraduate students. https://mural.maynoothuniveristy.ie

Sandberg, S. (2018). Lean in: women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Stelmokiene, A., and Endriulaitiene, A.  (2015).  Transformational leadership in the perception                  of subordinates. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(3), 331-344.

Tepper, B. J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Koopman, J., Matta, F., Man Park, H., Goo, W. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership form a dynamic, person-environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1343-1368. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0163

Walker, R. C., & Aritz, J. (2015). Women doing leadership: Leadership styles and organizational               culture. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(4), 452-478.

Uitenbroek, D. G. (1997). SISA Binomial. Southampton: D.G. Uitenbroek. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from the World Wide Web: https://www.quantitativeskills.com/sisa/distributions/binomial.htm

Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature         review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190–216.

Yıldız, I. G., & Şimşek, Ö. F. (2016). Different pathways from transformational leadership to job satisfaction. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 27(1), 59–77.

Yukl, G. (2008). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Appendix A: Request for Participation

Electronic Survey Request

            You are invited to participate in a research study on gender and leadership style. The purpose of this academic study is to evaluate if gender contributes to a transformational leadership style.

            Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, confidential, and anonymous. There are no known risks associated with this survey. Please complete the following demographics survey. 

Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire™

This questionnaire is designed to describe your leadership style.  Please complete the questionnaire in its entirety.  If you do not know the answer to a question or do not want to answer, please leave blank.

Think about your immediate manager. Please rate them according to the following questions:

The person I am rating:

1. Talks optimistically about the future.
2. Spends time teaching and coaching.
3. Avoids making decisions.

Rating Scale:

Now think about yourself. Please rate yourself according to the following questions:

The person I am rating:

1. I talk optimistically about the future.
2. I spend time teaching and coaching.
3. I avoid making decisions.

Rating Scale:

Copyright © 1995 by Bernard Bass & Bruce J. Avolia.  All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com