+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com
  

 answer the questions using the attached article as MAIN references

any additional citations should be peer reviewed 

make sure to use attached articles for reference

Week 4 QUESTION 1- MINIMUM OF 150 WORDS NO MORE THAN 300 WORDS AND MAKE SURE TO REFERENCE A PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE- 

  

What considerations must be given to the selection of a quantitative methodology for a research study? Based on what you know now, which of these considerations do you believe are the most important? Why?  

QUESTION 2-    Coughlan, Cronin, and Ryan (2007) provided a step-by-step guide to critiquing quantitative literature. Using these criteria, critique the article by Barnett. What are the important markers to look for when critiquing a quantitative study?

ANSWER THIS QUESTION 150 WORDS 

use attached article for source to provide cited reference 

International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63

© 2014 International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies (IJPES) is supported by Educational Researches and Publications Association (ERPA)

www.ijpes.com

International Journal of Psychology and Educational

Studies

Leadership and Job Satisfaction: Adjunct Faculty at a For-Profit University

Donald Barnett1

Grand Canyon University, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article History:

Received 20.06.2017

Received in revised form

17.07.2017

Accepted 25.09.2017

Available online

30.09.2017

There is a lack of research in the for-profit sector of higher education in the United States. Likewise,
there is a lack of research on the factors that affect the job satisfaction of adjunct faculty. To address

these gaps in knowledge, a quantitative correlational study was performed to investigate the effect

of administrative leadership on the job satisfaction of adjunct faculty who teach online classes at a

for-profit university in the United States. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures

perceived leadership behaviors, and Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey, which measures job

satisfaction, were used to anonymously collect data from a sample of 77 adjunct faculty. The Full-

Range Leadership model, which is composed of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

leadership behaviors, was the theoretical model for leadership. Pearson’s product moment

correlational analyses were performed to investigate the bi-variate relationships between the

variables. The dependent variable of total satisfaction had a statistically significant, direct and strong

correlation with the independent variable of transformational leadership (r = .536, p < .0005). The

strength and direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of total satisfaction

are associated with increases in scores in transformational leadership. Total satisfaction had a

statistically significant, indirect and moderate correlation with the independent variable of laissez-

faire leadership (r = -.372, p = .001). The strength and direction of the relationship indicated that lower

total satisfaction scores are associated with higher laissez-faire leadership scores. There was no

statistically significant relationship between transactional leadership and overall job satisfaction.

© 2017 IJPES. All rights reserved

Keywords:1
Job satisfaction, Full-Range Leadership, Adjunct Faculty, For-profit University, Transformational

Leadership, Postsecondary Education.

1. Introduction

Enrollments at for-profit universities in the United States have tripled sinced 2000, with close to 1.6 million

students registered in the year 2014 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). This increased enrollment,

along with the expansion of online education, has amplified the demand for classes that are taught entirely

online (Allen & Seaman, 2016), and produced a need for part time, non-tenured, adjunct, faculty to facilitate

these classes (Starcher & Mandernach, 2016). Regardless of the increased use of adjunct faculty to teach online

classes, few studies have investigated adjunct development, job satisfaction, or work experiences (Datray,

Saxon, & Martirosyan, 2014; Rich, 2015). Likewise, research in the for-profit sector of post-secondary education

is sparse when compared to the non-profit sector (Chung, 2012).

Currently, there is little research on the effects of perceived leadership behaviors in post-secondary, for-profit,

education on the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty members in the United States. This study sought to

discover if there was a correlation between the perceived use of Full-Range leadership behaviors by

administrators in post-secondary education and the overall job satisfaction of adjunct faculty members who

teach online classes at a for-profit university in the United States. Bateh and Heyliger (2014) observed that

1Corresponding author’s address: Grand Canyon University, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.03.006

International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63

54

research should be conducted in the for-profit sector to determine if the job satisfaction of online adjuncts is

effected by the bahaviors of administrative leadership because the problems and concerns of for-profit

administrators are different than their colleagues in private or public universities. The absence of research on

this demographic is significant because a university’s faculty is a major contributor to the accomplishment of

organizational goals (Machado-Taylor et al., 2016). Likewise, Askling and Stensaker (2002) observed the

significance of researching higher education leadership practices.

1.1. Background

For-profit higher education in the United States, while not new, has expanded from less than 100,000 students

over 40 years ago (Wilson, 2010) to near 1.6 million by 2014 (National Center for Education Statistic, 2016).

Enrollments in the for-profit sector in the United States have increased at 9% each year over the past 30 years,

while enrollment in the non-profit sector only posted a 1.5% increase per year over the same time frame

(Wilson, 2010). Despite controversies concerning some for-profit schools (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013), the

growth potential in the for-profit sector of post-secondary education remains strong, especially in career

education , adult education, and online learning (Levy, 2015). Coupled with the expansion of the for-profit

sector of post-secondary education is the increased use of part-time non-tenured, or adjunct, faculty members

(Gilpin, Saunders, & Stoddard, 2015).

Adjunct faculty typically are part-time employees who serve in a non-permanent capacity. They are non-

tenured, temporary, employees of a university who work as independent contractors. Post-secondary

institutions pay per course that the adjunct teaches, or sometimes retain their services by yearly appointment

(Bradley, 2013). In 2010, adjunct faculty accounted for 50% of all faculty in post-secondary schools in the

United States. The use of adjunct faculty has flourished because of economic concerns associated with

maintaining faculty (Dailey-Hebert, Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee, & Norris, 2014; Eagan, Jaeger, & Grantham,

2015) and the flexibility provided by adjuncts, which is required in online programs (Starcher & Mandernach,

2016). Regardless of the importance of adjunct faculty, many universities do not adequately support their

adjunct faculty members (Kezar, 2013a). Generally, adjunct faculty members do not receive raises, and have

limited chances for advancement. Health insurance and retirement benefits are scarce, and adjuncts seldom

have a voice in university governance (Halcrow & Olson, 2011; Kezar, 2013b; Morton, 2012). Adjunct faculty

who teach online classes are especially disconnected from their full-time counterparts (Benton & Li, 2015), and

usually rely on other adjunct faculty members for support (Rich, 2015). Despite their importance to academia,

adjunct faculty are an overlooked population (Ott & Cisneros, 2015), and little research has been conducted

into factors that lead to adjunct faculty job satisfaction (Rich, 2015).

Asking and Stensaker (2002) advocated studying leadership behaviors in higher education. Moreover, Al –

Smadi and Oblan (2015) stated that depending on the type of school investigated, there are statistically

significant differences in faculty job satisfaction. Despite this, little research examining the correlation between

administrative leadership and job satisfaction in higher education has been performed (Alonderiene &

Majauskaite, 2016; Kalargyrou, Pescosolido, & Kalagrios, 2012). This research was important because of the

need for research on the effect of leadership behaviors on faculty in for-profit universities (Bateh & Heyliger,

2014).

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1. Full Range Leadership Model. The theoretical foundation for this study was the Full-Range Leadership

Model (FRLM), which is composed of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.

Moynihan, Pandey, and Write (2012) observed that the FRLM is one of the best-formulated leadership models.

This is true because the three leadership styles examined by the model encompass almost all leadership

behaviors exhibited by leaders (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The framework of the FRLM allows researchers to

examine the advantages and disadvantages of varying leadership behaviors when investigating

administrative leadership in post-secondary education (Asmawi, Zakaria, & Wei, 2013).

Burns (1978) coined the phrases transactional and transformational leadership while investigating the

biographies of great political and historical leaders. Bass and Avolio (1993) expanded on Burns’ work and

developed the FLRM in order to find leadership behaviors that would be effective in non-political

organizations. Bass (1985) professed that leaders do not use one exclusive style of leadership. Instead, leaders

could use aspects of transactional and transformational leadership to effectively lead their followers. Recent

Donald E. Barnett

55

research indicates a mixture of transactional and transformational leadership displays a positive predictive

relationship with faculty job satisfaction (Bateh & Heyliger, 2014).

The FRLM is composed of five facets of transformational leadership, three elements of transactional

leadership, and one aspect of laissez-faire leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

1.2.1.1 Transformational Leadership. The theory of transformational leadership was introduced in a political

context by Burns (1978). Critical revisions to the theory were made by Bass (1985) and Avolio and Bass (2004).

Since then, the theory of transformational leadership has gone through significant meta-analytic and

theoretical examinations (Banks, McCauley, Gardner, & Guler, 2016; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Today,

it is one of the most recognizable theories on leadership behavior.

Transformational leadership represents how a leader motivates and inspires their followers to achieve their

higher potential (Burns, 1978). This style of leadership is based on encouragement, commendation,

acknowledgement, and trust (Mujkic, Šehic, Rahimic, & Jusic, 2014). Transformational leadership addresses

the needs of the followers, facilitates follower empowerment, and increases follower effort, efficiency, and

satisfaction (Bass, 2000). It is separated into four dimensions that can be distinguished theoretically and

empirically (Hobman, Jackson, Jimmieson, & Martin, 2012). These dimensions include individualized

consideration, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (Northouse, 2013).

1.2.1.1.1. Idealized Influence. Omar and Hussin (2013) observed that idealized influence is associated with how

a leader is viewed by their subordinates in terms of charisma, confidence, trust, power, consistency, and ideals.

Leaders who exhibit idealized influence consider the needs of others before their own, and demonstrate high

ethical standards. They are not motivated by personal gain and set challenging, but reasonable, goals for their

followers (Northouse, 2013). To more accurately describe and measure this dimension, idealized influence has

been divided into two different dimensions: Idealized influence (behavioral) and idealized influence

(attributed), with the former denoting how the leader behaves and the latter reflecting how the leader is

perceived by their followers (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

1.2.1.1.2. Inspirational Motivation. Sometimes referred to as inspirational leadership, inspirational motivation

entails inspiring and motivating subordinates. Inspirational leaders promote eagerness and confidence in their

followers by exhibiting dedication to the organization’s goals, communicating high expectations, and making

the employee an active part of achieving the vision of the organization (Northouse, 2013). Effective

communication of an inspiring and motivating vision is the primary component of inspirational motivation

(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999), which inspires subordinates to share in, and be committed to, the organization’s

vision (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Inspirational leaders foster a climate of trust, which in turn encourages follower

loyalty to the organization, even during downturns or crisis situations (Nisar, Rehman, Shah, & Rehman,

2013).

1.2.1.1.3. Individualized Consideration. In simple terms, individualized consideration denotes the leader’s ability

to make their followers feel special (Balyer, 2012). Leaders who display individualized consideration act as

advisor and teacher, and strive to nurture their subordinates so they reach their greatest potential (Northouse,

2013). Bass and Avolio (1993) stressed the encouraging facet of individualized consideration and the

significance of developing followers. Northouse (2013) emphasized that individualized consideration involves

teaching, mentoring, reinforcement, active listening, and offering emotional and social benefaction to the

follower.

1.2.1.1.4. Intellectual Stimulation. Avolio et al. (1999) stated intellectual stimulation encourages independent

and critical thinking by subordinates. Leaders that exhibit intellectual stimulation encourage innovative

thinking and the discovery of new ways to complete jobs (Anjali & Anand, 2015). Intellectually stimulating

leaders never criticize the ideas of their followers when they are different from their own, and encourage

problem solving by providing assignments that are intellectually challenging (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass, 1990).

1.2.1.2. Transactional Leadership. Burns (1978) devised the expression transactional leadership, which he

based on the 1947 work of Max Weber. Transactional leadership can be viewed as an agreement, or exchange.

Subordinates are rewarded, with pay or something else that is desired, in exchange for satisfactory

performance. Conversely, punishments are denoted for unsatisfactory performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The

basis for transactional leadership is the adage that everything has a price, and leaders define all benefits, codes

International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63

56

of discipline, and job duties (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transactional leadership is composed of two individual

facets: management-by-exception and contingent reward.

1.2.1.2.1. Contingent Reward. The basis for contingent reward is self-interest. Management motivates employees

by offering a set price for their work. Contingent reward ensues when an agreement is made between leader

and follower as to the rewards for successful job completion and punishment for sub-standard performance

(Bass & Avolio, 1994). Managers understand the needs of the organization, establish clear expectations and

goals, and effectively communicate organizational expectations (Bass, 1997).

1.2.1.2.2. Management-by-exception. Management-by-exception is separated into two separate facets: active

management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception. Management-by-exception (active) occurs

when management actively monitors an employee’s work performance, acting before work declines, and

intervening if there is a violation of policy (Bass, 1997). This differs from management-by-exception (passive)

in that the passive dimension involves the leader acting only after work deteriorates or a problem occurs.

Management-by-exception (passive) often involves negative feedback, correction, criticism, or punishments

issued by management (Northouse, 2013). During the refinement of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,

which measures the dimensions of the FRLM, management-by-exception (passive) was moved from a

transactional dimension to a dimension of laissez-faire, or passive-avoidant, leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

1.2.1.3. Laissez-Faire Leadership. Laissez-faire leadership is the lack of leadership. Laissez-faire leaders do not

act when a correction is needed. They do not offer any assistance to their subordinates and do not provide

followers with feedback that could help them reach their full potential (Northouse, 2013). Laissez-faire leaders

usually avoid taking any actions, shun responsibility, and are absent when needed (Bass, 1990). Even though

laissez-faire leadership is not usually found in entire organizations, it is still seen in the inaction of some

members of management (Bateh & Heyliger, 2014).

1.2.2. Job Satisfaction. Locke (1976) viewed job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state

resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience” (p. 1300). Job satisfaction is often seen as a

multifaceted combination of emotions, values, and the perceptions an individual has about the tasks

associated with their job (Chamberlain, Hoben, Squires, & Estabrooks, 2016). Spector (1985) observed that job

satisfaction may be viewed as the degree an individual is dissatisfied or satisfied with their job. Moradi,

Almutairi, Idrus, and Emami (2013) stated that job satisfaction is a mixture of job characteristics, environment,

and personal traits and feelings that are dynamic and, contingent on elements such as a changing of co-

workers, supervision, or the structure of the organization, may change over time.

1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Questions and Hypotheses. Research on the perceived effect of leadership on the job satisfaction of

non-tenured, adjunct faculty members who teach online classes is lacking in the for-profit segment of post-

secondary education. Research concerning the effect of leadership on job satisfaction in public and private

post-secondary institutions has yielded conflicting results. Bateh and Heyliger (2014) found transformational

and transactional leadership behaviors displayed a positive predictive relationship to faculty job satisfaction

at a public university in Florida, United States, but laissez-faire leadership produced negative results. Amin,

Shah, and Tatlah (2013) found transformational leadership had a positive relationship with job satisfacti on.

Conversely transactional behaviors yielded a negative relationship to the job satisfaction of lecturers at a

university in Pakistan. Masum, Azad, and Beh (2015), in their research on faculty job satisfaction at a private

university in Bangladesh, found transactional behaviors yielded a positive relationship with the job

satisfaction of lecturers, while transformational leadership had no significant relationship. Given the

conflicting findings, the researcher proposes these research questions and null hypotheses:

RQ1: Does the transformational leadership style of a higher education administrator have a correlation

with the overall job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States?

H10: There is no statistically significant correlation between the administrators’ transformational

leadership style and the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United

States.

Donald E. Barnett

57

RQ2: Does the transactional leadership style of a higher education administrator have a correlation

with the overall job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States?

H20: There is no statistically significant correlation between the administrators’ transactional

leadership style and the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty in a for-profit university in the United

States.

RQ3: Does the laissez-faire leadership style of a higher education administrator have a correlation with

the overall job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States?

H30: There is no statistically significant correlation between the administrators’ laissez-faire leadership

style and the job satisfaction of online adjunct faculty at a for-profit university in the United States.

2. Method

This quantitative study used a correlational design to investigate the relationship, if any, between the

leadership style of administrators in a private, for-profit university, as perceived by the adjunct faculty who

teach online classes at the same university, and the overall job satisfaction of the same faculty. An examination

of the bi-variate relationships between the four variables was performed with a Pearson’s product moment

correlational analyses. The independent variables were overall transformational leadership, overall

transactional leadership, and overall laissez-faire leadership. The dependent variable was overall job

satisfaction.

2.1. Sample

The study population consisted of online, non-tenured, adjunct faculty at a private, for-profit, post-secondary

school in the United States. After IRB approval, the research site invited 600 prospective participants via email

to participate in an online survey. After accepting the invitation, 85 individuals who met the criteria for the

study took the survey. Eight individuals did not complete the survey, and their responses were removed. A

total of N = 77 respondents composed the sample.

2.2. Instruments

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x (MLQ) and Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) were the

instruments used in this study. The MLQ quantifies the nine different dimensions of the FRLM, using 36 total

questions that are assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale. (Avolio & Bass, 2004). George and Mallery (2016)

stated a Cronbach’s alpha value of .90 or more is deemed excellent, .80-.89 is seen as good, .70-.79 is judged

acceptable, .60-.69 is viewed as questionable, .50-.59 is viewed as poor, and less than .50 is deemed

unacceptable. Tests performed by Avolio and Bass(2004) found reliabilities of (a = .63) to (a = .92) accross the

scales of the MLQ. Garg and Ramjee (2013) discovered the MLQ yielded an average Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient of (a = .97). For this study, the overall Cronbach alpha values were as follows: transformational

leadership (a = .95), transactional leadership (a = .69), and laissez-faire leadership (a = .79). The slightly low

Cronbach alpha value for overall transactional leadership was allowed because both dimensions of

transactional leadership displayed high Cronbach values, contingent reward (a = .73) and management-by-

exception (active) (a = .77). Moreover, the instrumentation has been used extensively and has shown

acceptable reliability in similar research and in literature; therefore, all constructs were considered acceptable

for use during inferential analysis.

Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) measures nine work factors, using 4 questions for each factor, on a 6-

point Likert type scale, for a total of 36 questions. Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, and Frings-Dresen (2003), in

their assessment of 29 different instruments that measured job satisfaction, found the JSS met all reliability

and validity criteria, and produced Cronbach alpha values of (a = .60) to (a = .80) across the scales, and an

overall Cronbach alpha of (a = .91). For this study, the Cronbach alpha value for overall job satisfaction was

(a = .90).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive data concerning the respondents and other demographic data was not collected for this study. The

descriptive analysis for the MLQ and JSS (Table 1) are as follows. The sample rated transactional leadership

International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 53-63

58

as the highest perceived overall style of leadership (M = 2.87), followed by transformational leadership (M =

2.85), and laissez-faire leadership (M = 2.79). The respondents perceived the three styles of leadership being

used at almost the same frequency, which indicates all three styles were used by administrators. To measure

overall job satisfaction, Spector (1997) stated the 36-item scale, which ranges from 36 to 216, should be

interpreted as follows: ranges from 36 to 108 indicate dissatisfaction, 109 to 144 indicate ambivalence, and 145

to 216 indicate satisfaction. The overall job satisfaction for this study (M = 116.34) indicates the respondents

are ambivalent about their overall job satisfaction, expressing neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction.

Table 1

Measures of Central Tendency for Study Instrumentation Scores (N = 77)

Instrument/Factor

M

SD

Mdn

Sample

Range

Transformational leadership 2.85 0.84 2.75 1.00 – 4.75

Transactional leadership 2.87 0.65 3.00 1.25 – 4.00

Laissez-faire leadership 2.79 0.77 2.88 1.38 – 4.63

Total satisfaction 116.34 19.92 115.00 69.00 – 154.00

Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Mdn = Median; MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire;

JSS = Job Satisfaction Survey.

3.2. Correlational analysis.

The researcher used Pearson’s product moment correlational analyses to examine the bi-variate relationships

between the four variables (Table 2). The dependent variable of total satisfaction had a statistically significant,

direct and strong correlation with the independent variable of transformational leadership (r = .536, p < .0005).

The strength and direction of the relationship indicated increases in the scores of total satisfaction are

associated with increases in scores in transformational leadership, and conversely, lower total satisfaction

scores were associated with lower transformational leadership scores. Total satisfaction had a statistically

significant, indirect and moderate correlation with the independent variable of laissez-faire leadership (r = –

.372, p = .001). The strength and direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of total

satisfaction were associated with decreases in scores of laissez-faire leadership, and conversely, lower total

satisfaction scores are associated with higher laissez-faire leadership scores. There was not a statistically

significant correlation between total satisfaction and transactional leadership.

The independent variable of transactional leadership had a statistically significant, direct and moderate

correlation with the independent variable of transformational leadership (r = .41, p < .0005). The strength and

direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of transactional leadership are associated

with increases in scores in transformational leadership, and conversely, lower transactional leadership scores

were associated with lower transformational leadership scores. Transactional leadership had a statistically

significant, indirect and weak correlation with the independent variable of laissez-faire leadership (r = -.23, p

= .043). The strength and direction of the relationship indicated that increases in the scores of transactional

leadership were associated with decreases in scores of laissez-faire leadership, and conversely, lower

transactional leadership scores were associated with higher laissez-faire leadership scores. There was also a

statistically significant indirect and strong correlation between the independent variables of transformational

leadership and laissez-faire leadership (r = -.65, p < .0005). The strength and direction of the relationship

indicated that increases in the scores of transformational leadership were associated with decreases in scores

of laissez-faire leadership, and conversely, lower transformational leadership scores were associated with

higher laissez-faire leadership scores. Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients for the Pearson’s product

moment correlations.

Donald E. Barnett

59

Table 2

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficients (N = 77)

Variable 1 2 3

1. Total satisfaction —

2. Transformational leadership .54** —

3. Transactional leadership -.02 .41** —

4. Laissez-faire leadership -.37** -.65** -.23*

* p < .05

** p < .01

4. Discussion

4.1. Research Question 1

The first question investigated if, and to what extent, the transformational leadership style of the administrator

affected the overall job satisfaction of online, non-tenured, adjunct faculty who teach at a for-profit university

in t