Journal of Educational Administration

The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness

and teachers job satisfaction
Maria Eliophotou Menon

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Maria Eliophotou Menon , (2014),"The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader
effectiveness and teachers job satisfaction", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 52 Iss 4 pp. 509 528
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0014
Downloaded on: 26 September 2014, At: 23:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 92 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Patreese D. Ingram, (1997),"Leadership behaviours of principals in inclusive educational settings", Journal
of Educational Administration, Vol. 35 Iss 5 pp. 411-427
Amr Swid, (2014),"Police members perception of their leaders leadership style and its implications",
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 Iss 3 pp. 579-595 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2013-0085
E. Kevin Kelloway, Julian Barling, Elizabeth Kelley, Julie Comtois, Bernadette Gatien, (2003),"Remote
transformational leadership", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp.
163-171

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

The relationship between

transformational leadership,
perceived leader effectiveness
and teachers job satisfaction
Maria Eliophotou Menon
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Abstract

Teachers job
satisfaction

509
Received 28 January 2013
Revised 28 September 2013
6 November 2013
17 December 2013
5 January 2014
Accepted 19 January 2014

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the link between transformational/
transactional/passive-avoidant leadership behaviors, teachers perceptions of leader effectiveness and
teachers job satisfaction. In this context, the paper also examines the conceptual model underlying the
scales of the most widely used instrument in research on transformational leadership, the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The theoretical framework for this investigation is that of the
full range model of leadership.
Design/methodology/approach An adapted version of the MLQ was administered to a sample of
438 secondary school teachers in the Republic of Cyprus. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modeling were used in the analysis of the data.
Findings The results provide support for a three-factor structure model consisting of
transformational, transactional and passive-avoidant forms of leadership, representing three
distinct components of leadership behavior. Teachers perceptions of leader effectiveness and
teachers overall job satisfaction were found to be significantly linked to the leadership behaviors
included in the full range model of leadership.
Research limitations/implications The findings are cross-sectional and based on the subjective
perceptions of teachers. The analysis of the data suggests that transformational leadership may not be
a sufficient condition for (perceived) headteacher effectiveness.
Originality/value The link between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness
and teachers overall job satisfaction has not been investigated in many studies. The present study
attempts to address this gap.
Keywords Leadership, Effectiveness, Educational administration, Teachers job satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

Contemporary research on school leadership has examined the link between leadership
models and educational outcomes. There is evidence to suggest that transformational
leadership has a positive effect on specific educational outcomes ranging from leader
effectiveness to teachers job satisfaction and student achievement (see, e.g. Eyal and
Roth, 2011; Griffith, 2004; Koh et al., 1995; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood and
Sun, 2012; Lowe et al., 1996; Silins and Mulford, 2002). However, systematic research on
the link between transformational leadership and educational outcomes remains limited.
Given the importance assigned to transformational leadership in school restructuring
and reform initiatives, there is a clear need for more evidence on the effectiveness of
transformational leadership behaviors and practices at the school unit.
Leaders are expected to be more influential if followers perceive their behavior as
leadership (Lord and Maher, 1993). The perceptions of followers regarding the
effectiveness of their leaders thus constitute an important indication of effectiveness.
In research on transformational leadership, it is generally hypothesized that
transformational behaviors and practices will result in perceived effectiveness and

Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 52 No. 4, 2014
pp. 509-528
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0014

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

510

satisfaction on the part of followers (Avolio and Bass, 2004; Bass, 1985; Lowe et al.,
1996). In this context, the empowering and transformational dimensions of school
leadership are considered to result in a positive assessment of the headteacher, which
can serve as the basis for greater follower commitment to the school leaders vision and
greater effort than initially expected. Thus, the adoption of a transformational
leadership model is considered to contribute to perceived effectiveness. However, there
is very little evidence to support this link.
The present study investigates the link between transformational leadership
behaviors and practices, the leaders effectiveness as perceived by school teachers, and
the teachers overall job satisfaction. Avolio and Basss (2004) Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) was used to collect information regarding transformational
leadership behaviors and practices from a sample of 438 secondary school teachers
in Cyprus. Statistical analysis was applied to the data in order to examine the link
between transformational/transactional/passive-avoidant leadership behaviors, the
leaders perceived effectiveness and the teachers job satisfaction.
Moreover, the paper aims at examining the conceptual model underlying the MLQ
5X scales. A six-factor model was proposed by Bass (1985) and was followed by
alternative leadership factor models. Research on the MLQ has resulted in the
identification of eight alternative factor models (Avolio and Bass, 2004), which include
a null model, and seven models which range from one to seven factors. The present
study attempts to provide further evidence on the factor structure of the MLQ in order
to shed light on the underlying dimensions of the transformational and transactional
leadership constructs.
The study informs the literature on transformational leadership by providing
evidence on the applicability of the full range leadership model in a different cultural
context, that of a small Eastern Mediterranean country (Cyprus). Braun et al. (2013)
point to the importance of investigating the transformational leadership model in
different countries and cultural contexts. At present, the evidence from non-western
regions is limited: For instance, in an investigation of knowledge production in
educational leadership and management in East Asia, Hallinger and Bryant (2013)
found a small contribution (o6 percent) of the region to papers published in relevant
journals. The Republic of Cyprus constitutes an interesting case for the investigation of
the effects of transformational leadership not only in relation to the countrys small size
but also because of the more highly centralized nature of its educational system (in
comparison to most European and Western countries).
Literature review
Theoretical framework
Transformational leadership is a conception of leadership characterized by an explicit
focus on the role of the leaders in the reform of the organization and the development
of followers (Dansereau et al., 1995). The distinction between transactional and
transformational leadership is believed to have originated with Downton (1973), even
though it became widely known through Burns (1978) work on political leaders.
Burns (1978) examination of the biographies of political leaders led him to
distinguish between two forms of leadership, which he viewed as polar opposites:
(1)

Transactional leadership considers the relationship between leader and

follower to be mainly one of exchange. The leader offers rewards to the
follower in exchange for desired behaviors and practices.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

(2)

Transformational leadership takes place when leaders interact with followers

in ways that enhance mutual levels of creativity and motivation in the
organization (Burns, 1978).

Drawing on Burns framework, Bass (1985) proposed a conceptualization of

transformational leadership based on the investigation of the behavior of leaders in
both public and private organizations. Unlike Burns, Bass viewed transactional and
transformational forms of leadership as separate but complementary constructs (Avolio
et al., 1999; Bass, 1985). Transformational behaviors enhance the impact of transactional
practices, through their effects on follower motivation and creativity. In this context, a
leader can be both transformational and transactional (Lowe et al., 1996).
According to Bass and Avolio (1994), a transformational leader does not seek to
maintain existing systems and practices; instead, he/she is willing to take risks in order
to provide a stimulus for change and innovation. Transformational leaders manage to
motivate followers to achieve more than originally planned and create a supportive
organizational climate where individual needs and differences are acknowledged
and respected (Bass, 1998). Goals are shared, allowing both leaders and followers to
focus on the common good, through commitment to the mission and values of
the organization. This leads to openness and trust in the organizational climate, as
members learn to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organization.
In its original form, Basss theory included four transformational and two
transactional leadership factors. The original model was expanded to include nine
single-order factors, consisting of five transformational leadership, three transactional
leadership and one non transactional laissez-faire leadership component. This is
known as the full range leadership model, with the following components:
(1)

Attributed idealized influence refers to the degree to which followers consider

leaders to be powerful, and charismatic. Followers develop feelings of trust
and confidence in their leaders.

(2)

Idealized influence as behavior refers to actual leader behavior characterized

by values and a sense of purpose. Through idealized influence, individuals in
the organization try to follow their leaders example.

(3)

Inspirational motivation takes place when the leader inspires followers by

providing them with meaning and challenge. Leaders project hope and
optimism for the future, thus enhancing commitment to shared goals.

(4)

Intellectual stimulation is an important aspect of transformational leadership,

through which leaders encourage followers to be creative and innovative in
the organization. Followers are expected to be critical in relation to existing
assumptions and traditions, including their own beliefs and solution to problems.

(5)

Individualized consideration refers to a situation where leaders are able to

understand the needs of individuals and focus on them on a one-to-one basis.
Transformational leaders encourage the development of individual needs and
the achievement of personal goals. Through their actions and examples, they
create organizational cultures which support improvement and growth.

(6)

Contingent reward leadership is one of three dimensions of transactional

leadership. It refers to leader behaviors aimed at providing rewards to
followers contingent on the fulfillment of role requirements and contractual
obligations.

Teachers job
satisfaction

511

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

512

(7)

Management by exception (active) refers to the active involvement of the leader

in the effort to determine whether requirements are met.

(8)

Management by exception (passive) refers to a situation where the leader takes

corrective action only after becoming aware that problems exist or mistakes
have been made.

(9)

Laissez-faire leadership refers to a passive form of leadership where the leader

decides to avoid or delay making decisions and abdicates responsibility.
In general, the leader has a preference for avoiding action (for a discussion of
the nine components of the full range model of leadership presented above, see,
e.g. Avolio and Bass, 2004; Antonakis et al., 2003; Yammarino et al., 1993).

The MLQ was developed by Bass (1985) in order to measure transformational and
transactional leader behavior. It has been widely used to assess the component factors
of the model proposed by Avolio and Bass (2004) and to investigate the nature of the
relationship between transactional/transformational leadership styles and job
effectiveness and satisfaction. Despite several criticisms, the current version of the
MLQ (Form 5X) remains the most popular instrument in research on transformational
and transactional leadership.
The effects of transformational leadership: research findings
Early research on school leadership by Leithwood and Jantzi, (1990) and Leithwood
et al. (1993) pointed to the importance of transformational leadership practices and
collaborative school cultures for school effectiveness (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990;
Leithwood et al., 1993). The effects of transformational leadership and the link between
transformational and transactional leadership were examined by Silins (1992, 1994),
who investigated the relationship between school leadership and school improvement
outcomes based on Basss full range leadership model. Transformational leadership
was represented by the variables of charisma/inspiration, intellectual stimulation and
individual consideration, while transactional leadership was represented by the
variables of contingent reward and management-by-exception. Canonical analysis and
partial least squares path analysis were applied to the data collected from a random
sample of 679 teachers in Canada. A strong positive relationship emerged between
transformational and transactional leadership, suggesting that the two types of leadership
should not be treated as independent variables. Transformational leadership was found to
have direct effects on school, program and instruction, and student outcomes. However,
student outcomes were influenced directly and positively by transactional leadership but
not by transformational leadership.
The MLQ has been widely used to investigate the link between transformational
leadership and leader effectiveness and/or organizational performance in different
types of organizations in several countries. Leaders at high and low level positions
have been examined at both public and private organizations. In non educational
settings, positive associations between transformational leadership and performance
were reported in several studies (see, e.g. Bass et al., 2003; Yammarino et al., 1993;
Zacharatos et al., 2000). Transformational leadership was found to augment the impact
of transactional leadership on both subjective performance and objective effectiveness
indicators such as profit (Rowold and Heinitz, 2007). In many cases, the impact of
transformational leadership behaviors on performance was found to be significant but
indirect (McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002; Podsakoff et al., 1990).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

Research findings on transformational leadership have pointed to a statistically

significant relationship between leader effectiveness and the transformational
scales of Charisma (or Idealized Influence), Individualized Consideration and
Intellectual Stimulation (Lowe et al., 1996). One of the two transactional scales
(Contingent Reward) was also associated with effectiveness, albeit to a lesser extent,
while management-by-exception was reported to have low or negative correlations
with effectiveness.
In a meta-analysis of the transformational leadership literature based on the MLQ,
Lowe et al. (1996) found a positive association between transformational leadership and
work unit effectiveness. The link between transformational scales and effectiveness was
higher than between transactional scales and effectiveness. Charisma was the scale most
strongly associated with effectiveness, the association being stronger for follower
perceptions of effectiveness than for organizational measures. The same was true of the
Individualized Consideration scale. The two transactional scales were not consistent in
their links with effectiveness as results differed across studies.
In education, a limited number of studies have used the MLQ to investigate the link
between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness and/or school
performance. Findings point to a positive association between leadership style and
effectiveness: Ibrahim and Al-Taneiji (2013) reported a positive correlation between the
leadership style of the principal and his/her effectiveness even though no link was
found to school performance. However, most studies focus on the link between
transformational leadership and teacher-related variables such as job satisfaction
and commitment. Even though dependent variables vary across studies and cannot
always provide evidence on the link between leadership approach and leadership
effectiveness, this research makes an important contribution to the literature in that
it points to possible mediating variables in the relationship between transformational
leadership and leader effectiveness.
Koh et al. (1995) investigated the effects of transformational leadership on teacher
attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Data were collected from school
teachers and principals using instruments which included the MLQ. In comparison
to transactional leadership, transformational leadership was found to be associated with
additional positive effects in predicting organizational commitment, organizational
citizenship behavior and teacher satisfaction. The effects of transformational leadership
on student academic achievement were indirect. An association between transformational
leadership and teacher outcomes was also reported in other studies. Barnett et al. (2005)
found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and teacher job satisfaction
in secondary education.
The available research on the effects of transformational leadership suggests that this
form of leadership is more likely to have a direct impact on organizational processes
associated with employee practices, motivation and satisfaction, which in turn are linked
to the quality of the service offered and the performance of the organization (see
Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999, 2000, 2005). In most studies, positive indirect effects on
student outcomes have been identified, with at least one study reporting a significant
negative association between transformational leadership behavior and student
outcomes: In Australia, Barnett et al. (2001) reported that while transformational
leadership was positively linked to teacher outcomes such as satisfaction and extra
effort, it was negatively associated with student learning culture.
In addition to research using the MLQ to investigate the links between transformational
leadership and educational outcomes, several studies have employed different instruments

Teachers job
satisfaction

513

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

514

and scales to examine the same relationship. Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) conducted
research on the effects of transformational leadership using their own model of
transformational leadership, which is based on their research in schools. They found
transformational leadership to have strong positive effects on organizational
conditions (school and classroom conditions) (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). School
conditions included variables such as school planning and organizational culture,
while classroom conditions referred to instructional services, and policies and
procedures. The effects of transformational leadership on student engagement in
school were significant but weak on the affective and behavioral dimensions of
student engagement.
In Australia, the findings of the LOSLO (Leadership for Organizational Learning
and Student Outcomes) research project provided additional evidence in support of the
positive effects of transformational leadership practices on educational outcomes.
Transformational leadership was reported to influence all school and outcome
variables included in the study except students participation in the school (Silins and
Mulford, 2002; Silins et al., 2002). In this study, organizational learning emerged as a
mediator of the effects of school leadership on teachers work and student outcomes.
Unlike transformational leadership, distributed leadership was not found to have a
significant impact on student participation in, and engagement with, school.
Geijsel et al. (2003) used data from Canada and the Netherlands to examine the
relationship between transformational leadership, and teacher commitment and effort
toward school reform. In both countries, the dimensions of transformational leadership
had modest effects on teacher commitment to reform. Of all dimensions, vision
building and intellectual stimulation were reported to have a significant effect on
teacher commitment and extra effort, while individualized consideration was found to
have the weakest influence. Their findings are in agreement with earlier studies on the
impact of transformational leadership practices on extra effort: Bass (1985) showed
transformational leadership to be associated with extra effort among educational
administrators in New Zealand to a greater extent than transactional leadership.
Similar findings were reported by Seltzer and Bass (1990) and Tucker et al. (1992).
In another study, Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) investigated the effects of
transformational leadership on teacher variables, classroom practices and student
achievement, using data from a national literacy and numeracy program in England.
Teacher variables included motivation, capacities (ability required for performance)
and work settings (teachers collective practices in relation to large-scale reform, and
the collective efficacy of the staff). Through path analysis, the authors found leadership
to have significant effects on teachers classroom practices. Leadership, along with the
three teacher variables, explained about 25-35 percent of the variation in teachers
classroom practices. However, leadership did not have a significant effect on student
achievement.
Links between transformational leadership and teacher-related variables were also
reported in additional studies on the topic: several studies reported positive links
between transformational leadership and job satisfaction (Bogler, 2001; Braun et al.,
2013; Nguni et al., 2006). Nguni et al. (2006) found that in addition to job satisfaction,
transformational leadership had strong effects on organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior. Recently, Eyal and Roth (2011) found
transformational leadership to predict autonomous motivation among teachers;
Khasawneh et al. (2012) found a strong, positive relationship between transformational
leadership and the organizational commitment of teachers; Thoonen et al. (2011)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

reported that transformational leadership practices had a positive effect on teachers

professional learning and motivation as well as on school organizational conditions.
In sum, the findings of research on the association between transformational
leadership and teacher-related outcomes generally point to positive effects. In their
review of transformational school leadership research, Leithwood and Jantzi
(2005) examined 32 empirical studies published between 1996 and 2005. They found
transformational leadership to have indirect but significant effects on student
achievement and engagement in school. Leithwood and Sun (2012) also reported
a significant effect of this form of leadership on educational outcomes in their
recent review of relevant unpublished research findings. Their synthesis indicates
that transformational leadership has significant positive effects on educational
outcomes, which generally range from strong (for teachers internal states and
behaviors) to small (for student achievement). The review of unpublished research
thus provides additional evidence pointing to a weak link between transformational
leadership and important educational outcomes such as student achievement and
school performance.
An explanation for the weak effect may be found in the work of Marks and Printy
(2003), who used hierarchical linear modeling to examine the effect of school leadership
approach on two dependent variables, namely, pedagogical quality and student
achievement. They found transformational leadership to be a necessary but
insufficient condition for instructional leadership. They proposed an integrated form
of leadership which combines transformational and instructional approaches to
leadership. Substantial effects of leadership on school performance were found when
the two types of leadership were combined. This suggests that transformational
leadership behaviors and practices may have to be combined with other practices in
order to have a significant effect on certain educational outcomes. If this is the case,
transformational leadership may not necessarily result in teachers perceptions of
headteacher effectiveness.
Leithwood and Sun (2012) also acknowledge the need for integrated models of
leadership. They draw attention to the fact that the same leadership practices are found
in most leadership models and argue that research on leadership effects on educational
outcomes should focus on these practices rather than on whole leadership models.
These practices should include transformational leadership practices as well as
practices aimed at improving the technical core of the school unit (learning and
instruction).
Transformational leadership: conceptual and methodological issues
Even though transformational leadership does not appear to suffer from conceptual
and methodological weaknesses to the same degree as other forms of leadership (e.g.
distributed leadership), several aspects of the transformational leadership model have
been identified as problematic: according to critics, the model places too much
emphasis on the transformational qualities of the leader, thereby reinforcing the notion
that the principal is the sole source of leadership at the school (Evers and Lakomski,
1996; Stewart, 2006). In response to this criticism, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) point out
that their transformational leadership model does not assume that the principal will be
the only source of leadership in the organization and is consistent with the sharing of
leadership with teachers and other stakeholders. However, the emphasis on shared
leadership practices in the conceptualization of transformational leadership can give
rise to another type of concern: given that scholars have had limited success in

Teachers job
satisfaction

515

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

516

measuring the effects of a single leader on outcomes, the measurement of the effects of
transformational leadership can be even more challenging, if it does not assume that
leadership is concentrated on the principal alone (Hallinger, 2003).
Additional concerns relate to the subdimensions of transformational leadership and
the hypothesized factor structure of Basss model. The definition of subdimensions
appears problematic both in relation to the clarity of the distinction between charisma
and inspirational motivation, and the operationalization of contingent reward
(Goodwin et al., 2001; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004). Contingent reward, in particular,
appears to be especially problematic in that it has been found to be multidimensional
and related to transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008;
Tejeda et al., 2001). Yukl (1999) also points to ambiguity in transformational leadership
behaviors stemming from partially overlapping content and high-intercorrelation.
For instance, the Individualized Consideration scale includes items that relate to both
developing and supporting behaviors on the part of the leader. These weaknesses cast
doubt on the findings of empirical research regarding the effects of transformational
leadership (Evers and Lakomski, 1996; Tejeda et al., 2001). They also point to the need
for further examination of the theoretical and empirical properties of MLQ measures,
especially in relation to the transactional and laissez-faire dimensions (Hinkin and
Schriesheim, 2008).
Research on transformational leadership has provided conflicting evidence on the
factor structure of the full-range leadership model (Antonakis et al., 2003; Rafferty
and Griffin, 2004). Avolio and Bass (2004) presented several alternative conceptual
models of the factor structure of the MLQ, ranging from a one-factor leadership model
to a seven-correlated-factor model. Their findings provided evidence in support of a
nine-factor model (Avolio and Bass, 2004), even though their previous research found
a six-factor model to produce the best fit for the data (see, Avolio et al., 1999). In a
discussion of the factor structure of the MLQ, Avolio and Bass continued to subscribe
to the theoretical framework of the six-factor model, viewing the nine-factor model as
an attempt to define more precisely the leadership constructs of the questionnaire
(Avolio and Bass, 2004, p. 45). Inconclusive findings regarding the factor structure of
the MLQ have led researchers to adopt different approaches to the measurement
of transformational and transactional leadership (see, e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1990;
Rafferty and Griffin, 2004).
Additional problems relate to other aspects of transformational leadership and the
MLQ in particular. For instance, critics have drawn attention to the omission from
the MLQ of important behaviors derived from theories and research on effective
leadership. In a review of two decades of research in transformational leadership, Bass
(1999, p. 18) acknowledges the following problems with the MLQ: multicollinearity
of its scales, lower than desired reliability under some circumstances for active
managing-by-exception, and questions about the universality of the factor structure of
the model of full range leadership.
Finally, an important issue concerns the fact that the measurement of leadership
based on the MLQ does not take into account the role of context and/or situational
variables. Differences in contexts stemming from culture, leadership and
environmental characteristics may have an impact on the types of leader behaviors
followers consider effective. Hallinger (2003) highlights the importance of the school
context in studies of school leadership and recommends the incorporation of the
contingent characteristics of school leadership into contemporary theoretical models.
Even though some findings support the stability of the nine-factor model within

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

homogeneous contexts (see, e.g. Antonakis et al., 2003), there is limited evidence on
the topic.
Method
An adapted version of the MLQ was employed to collect data for the study. Specifically,
the MLQ Rater Form (5X-Short) was adapted to the purposes of the study: Given
that the aim of the study was to focus on the link between transformational leadership
and teachers perceptions of effectiveness, only teachers were questioned. Specifically,
respondents were asked to rate their headteachers on the 45 items included in
the questionnaire. Of the 45 items, 36 concerned leadership behaviors of school
headteachers.
In addition, participants were asked to state their overall job satisfaction by
responding to three questions: in the first question, respondents were asked to rate the
level of their job satisfaction, based on a seven point scale where 1 stood for very high
dissatisfaction and 7 for very high satisfaction (S.1). They were also asked to state the
extent of their agreement/disagreement with the following statements:
.

I have not faced serious problems after my entry into the profession (S.2); and

I would not have chosen the same job (S.3).

The combination of these items produced a latent factor of job satisfaction, which
included both an affective (feeling of satisfaction) and a behavioral component (choice
of teaching as a profession).
Moreover, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they believed their
headteacher to have an effect on four items representing two types of outcomes:
student outcomes, and school (organizational) outcomes. Student outcomes included
learning and behavioral outcomes; school outcomes included the effectiveness of the
school in relation to the accomplishment of its goals, and the quality of the
organization. Thus, the combination of student and school outcomes resulted in a
perceived effectiveness latent factor consisting of the following four items:
(1)

perceived headteacher effects on students behaviors (P.1);

(2)

perceived headteacher effects on the schools achievement of goals (P.2);

(3)

perceived headteacher effects on students learning (P.3); and

(4)

perceived headteacher effects on the improvement of the quality of the

school (P.4).

The items were selected after a review of relevant literature on the links between
leadership models and educational outcomes. Personal and demographic data were
also collected.
The sample consisted of 438 secondary education teachers employed at ten
secondary schools in Cyprus. The ten schools were selected to represent different
regional and socioeconomic background characteristics. Thus, urban, suburban and
rural schools were included in the sample. Within each school, all teachers were
instructed to fill the questionnaire. The response rate was over 90 percent, which was
partly due to the fact that the person responsible for collecting the data were employed
at the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education official delivered the
questionnaires to schools and collected the completed instruments, without becoming
personally involved in the distribution of the instrument to teachers. This was

Teachers job
satisfaction

517

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

518

considered necessary in order to avoid bias stemming from the position of the Ministry
of Education official.
Quantitative analysis was used to address the main research questions, namely,
the investigation of the factor structure of the MLQ, and the relation between
transformational leadership behaviors, teachers perceptions of leader effectiveness
and teachers job satisfaction. The use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
appropriate because we wanted to examine the validity of an a priori model, based on
past evidence and theory (Brown, 2006). CFA is part of a general class of approaches
included in structural equation modeling and is used in situations where the factors of
a set of variables are already known because of previous research. In the case of the
present study, CFA was used to test hypotheses corresponding to the dimensions
of transformational leadership. The goals of the analysis were first to estimate
the relative strength of the model and second to trace the relation between the
transformational leadership factors, job satisfaction, and the perceived effectiveness
of the school leader. After establishing that the measurement model was valid, we
tested the validity of alternative structural models to examine relationships among
constructs. Essentially, the measurement model provided an assessment of convergent
and discriminant validity, and the structural model provided an assessment of
predictive validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
MPLUS (Muthen and Muthen, 1998-2007) was used to test for model fitting in this
study. In order to evaluate model fit, three fit indices were computed: the w2 to
its degree of freedom ratio (w2/df ), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). Based on the relevant literature, the
observed values for w2/df should be less than two, the values for CFI should be higher
than 0.9, and the RMSEA values should be close to or lower than 0.08 (Marcoulides and
Schumacker, 1996).
Univariate skew and kurtosis for all measures were at acceptable levels (see Table I
for descriptive statistics). The reliability of the MLQ scale was excellent (a 0.90).
Table I provides information on the reliability of the MLQ subscales, as measured by
Cronbachs a.
Findings
The findings are presented according to the aims of the study. We first focussed on
establishing the validity of the latent factors and the viability of the structure of the
hypothesized latent factors of leadership behaviors. We then proceeded to examine the
relation between the leadership factors and the two types of outcomes. Table I presents
the descriptive statistics of the used measures. As seen in Table I, the ratings of
MLQ scale

Table I.
Descriptive statistics
and reliability of
MLQ scale

Idealized influence (attributed)

Idealized influence (behavior)
Inspirational motivation
Intellectual stimulation
Individualized consideration
Contingent reward
Management-by-exception (active)
Management-by-exception (passive)
Laissez-faire leadership

Mean

SD

Range

Skew

Kurtosis

Cronbachs a

2.90
2.96
2.98
2.45
2.58
2.80
2.85
1.23
1.13

0.81
0.73
0.68
0.80
0.88
0.83
0.74
1.06
0.94

3.75
3.50
3.75
3.67
4.0
3.67
4.00
4.00
3.50

0.77
0.59
0.87
0.45
0.53
0.72
0.52
0.49
0.53

0.24
0.09
1.02
0.08
0.11
0.73
0.09
0.84
0.78

0.82
0.66
0.79
0.74
0.67
0.76
0.60
0.71
0.84

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

headteachers on the transformational and transactional leadership scales generally

range between 2.00 and 3.00, indicating that the ratings they received were
satisfactory. The ratings were below 2.00 in the case of management-by-exception
(passive) and Laissez-faire Leadership, which shows that headteachers were not
considered to be passive-avoidant by headteachers. In other words, respondents did
not believe that their headteachers avoided making decisions or taking action until
serious problems emerged.

Teachers job
satisfaction

519

The structure of leadership

To investigate the factor structure of the MLQ, we examined the validity of
alternative measurement models by using CFA. First, we examined the fit of the data
to a one-factor model. Second, we examined whether a two-correlated factor model
(active vs passive leadership) could fit the data. Then, we examined the fit of models
hypothesizing that the factor structure of the MLQ can be modeled by three, four,
five and six correlated latent factors. In addition, we examined the validity of
an alternative three-factor model that hypothesized that the Contingent Reward
dimension loads on the transformational instead of the transactional factor, as found
in a number of studies (Bass, 1985; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008; Tejeda et al.,
2001). The results of the study showed that models with more than four factors did
not converge. This could be explained by the multicollinearity of the MLQ scales
(Bass, 1999).
Table II presents the fit indices and the information criteria of the alternative
models. The results of evaluating the alternative models indicated that the four-factor
and the alternative three-factor models had the best fit to the data because they had the
smallest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC)
values (AIC 3Factor_Alt. 26,478, AIC4Factor 26,471, BIC3Factor_Alt. 26,872,
BIC4Factor 26,876). However, taking into consideration the fact that in the fourfactor model, an extremely high correlation between the transactional and
transformational factors was observed (0.97) as well as the parsimony principle, we
decided to adopt the alternative three-factor model. In addition, the fit indices of
the alternative three-factor model were extremely robust (CFI 0.933, w2/df 2.13,
RMSEA 0.05). The adequacy of the adopted measurement model gave strong
support to the hypothesis that all items were valid indicators of the hypothesized
constructs they aimed to measure.
CFA showed that the parameter estimates of the adopted model were reasonable in
that all factor loadings were statistically significant at the po0.05 level, as indicated
by the t-value (41.96). The standardized estimates ranged from 0.45 to 0.97 (see
Figure 1) and were regarded as acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, around half of
the R2 values approach or exceed 0.50, indicating that each item explained around half
of the variance of the latent construct to which it belonged. It should be noted that
a/a

Description

w2/df

CFI

RMSEA

AIC

BIC

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

One-factor model
Two-factor model
Three-factor model
Alternative three-factor model
Four-factor model

4.03
2.20
2.11
2.13
2.11

0.819
0.929
0.928
0.933
0.935

0.09
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05

27,121
26,503
26,506
26,478
26,471

27,503
26,888
26,899
26,872
26,876

Table II.
Fit indices and
information criterions
of the alternative
measurement models

JEA
52,4

Q. 1
Q. 2

0.79 (0.52)a

Q. 9

0.61 (0.48)

Q. 10

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

520

Q. 13

0.52 (0.37)
0.92 (0.71)
0.50 (0.31)

Q. 15

0.66 (0.36)

Q. 16

0.66 (0.49)

Q. 18

0.67 (0.45)

Q. 19

0.68 (0.33)

Q. 21

0.76 (0.52)
0.52 (0.43)

Q. 23

0.64 (0.50)

Q. 25

0.64 (0.40)

Q. 26

0.60 (0.33)

Q. 30

F1:
Transformational

0.83 (0.54)
0.66 (0.40)

Q. 31
Q. 32
Q. 34

0.51 (0.27)

0.78

0.67 (0.50)
0.57

0.53 (0.44)

Q. 35
Q. 36
Q. 4
Q. 22

0.45 (0.15)

F2: Transactional

0.67 (0.47)
0.66 (0.44)

Q. 24
0.50
Q. 5

0.88 (0.54)

Q. 7

0.80 (0.55)

Q. 12

0.97 (0.63)
0.79 (0.43)

Q. 20
Q. 28

Figure 1.
Standardized solution
for the alternative
three-factor model

0.90 (0.58)

F3: Passiveavoidant

0.82 (0.50)

Q. 33

Note: aThe first number indicates factor loading and the number in parenthesis
indicates the corresponding r 2

almost all R2 values of the items that belong to F3 exceeded 0.50. The internal
consistency (a) of the two factors was excellent (aF1 0.96 and aF3 0.90), while the
internal reliability of one factor (F2) was acceptable (aF2 0.71).
Moreover, the first part of the analysis showed that the observed and theoretical
factor structures matched the data set of the present study and determined the
goodness of fit of the three-factor model, indicating that the transformational, the
transactional and the passive avoidant forms of leadership represent three distinct

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

components of leadership behavior. The analysis showed that each of the items
included in the factors loaded adequately only on one of the three factors, giving
support to the assumption that the three types of leadership parameters could
represent three distinct, but correlated dimensions of leadership.
The theoretical basis for the alternative three-factor model was that leadership
consists of three correlated factors, namely transformational (F1), transactional (F2)
and passive avoidant leadership (F3). The framework of the adopted alternative
three-factor measurement model hypothesizes that the transformational factor
includes items that refer to attributed idealized influence, idealized influence as
behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized
consideration and contingent reward. In addition, the transactional leadership factor
consists of items that refer to active management by exception. Finally, the passive/
avoidant behavior factor includes items that relate to passive management by
exception and laissez-faire leadership. In total, 28 items were included in the factors,
with nine excluded because of low loadings or reliability problems. This resulted in
three general factors (transformational, transactional and passive avoidant), that
model teachers perceptions regarding the characteristics of school leadership.
The results of the study showed that the correlations between the three dimensions
of leadership were statistically significant. The correlation coefficient between F1 and
F2 (r 0.78, po0.05) was positive, while the correlations between F1 and F3
(r 0.57, po0.05), and F2 and F3 (r 0.50, po0.05) were negative. The strong
positive correlation between F1 and F2 can be attributed to the strong conceptual
relation between transformational and transactional characteristics. The negative
correlations between the first two factors and the third factor were expected, given the
fact that the third factor represents the passive-avoidant dimension of leadership, as
opposed to the positive dimensions captured by the transformational and transactional
leadership factors.
The structural model
To examine the relation between the three factors of leadership behaviors, perceived
leader effectiveness and job satisfaction, we tested the validity of two alternative
structural models: the first model hypothesized that the three factors of
transformational leadership have a direct effect on perceived leader effectiveness
and job satisfaction (Model 1), while the second model hypothesized that perceived
leader effectiveness and job satisfaction affect directly the three latent factors of
transformational leadership (Model 2). The reason that both causality directions
were considered was the long-standing debate in the job satisfaction literature
regarding the direction of causality between job satisfaction and specific outcomes
such as performance and productivity (see, e.g. Harrison et al., 2006; Judge et al.,
2001; March and Sutton, 1997). Moreover, where research finds causal effects
from job satisfaction to such outcomes, they tend to be weak ( Judge et al., 2001;
Riketta, 2008).
The analysis showed that the AIC and BIC values of the two models (AIC
34,162 and BIC 34,667) were identical and their fit indices were at acceptable
levels. Thus, it appears that both models could be adopted. However, the
standardized solution of Model 1 showed that only job satisfaction had a statistically
significant direct effect on the passive-avoidant factor, while the standardized
solution of Model 2 revealed that all the hypothesized regression coefficients
were statistically significant. Thus, it was decided to adopt Model 2 (CFI 0.93,

Teachers job
satisfaction

521

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

522

w2/df 1.82, RMSEA 0.04), in which the perceived leader effectiveness construct
and job satisfaction are predictive factors of the three transformational leadership
factors (Figure 2).
The results of the adopted structural model showed that perceived leader
effectiveness and job satisfaction have direct effects on the three leadership factors.
In particular, perceived leader effectiveness had a positive direct effect on the
transformational factor (r 0.22, z 4.05, po0.05) and the transactional factor
(r 0.28, z 4.38, po0.05) and a negative direct effect on the passive-avoidant
factor (r 0.11, z 2.05, po0.05). Job satisfaction had a positive direct effect on
the transformational factor (r 0.31, z 5.17, po0.05) and the transactional factor
(r 0.24, z 3.53, po0.05) and a negative direct effect on the passive-avoidant
factor (r 0.52, z 10.12, po0.05). In sum, perceived leader effectiveness and
job satisfaction had positive direct effects on the two leadership factors and a
negative direct effect on the passive-avoidant factor. It should be noted that
perceived leader effectiveness had stronger prediction validity on the transactional
factor, while job satisfaction proved to have the strongest direct effect on the passive
avoidant factor.
The nature of the link of perceived leader effectiveness and job satisfaction with the
three leadership factors in the adopted model is different from the prevailing
hypothesis advanced in the transformational leadership literature, according to which
transformational leadership behaviors and job satisfaction are expected to have an
impact on educational outcomes. Our model suggests that an overall situation (or
perception) of leader effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction may predict teachers
identification of transformational and transactional qualities in their leader.
The implications of this and other findings are discussed below.

F1: Transformational

0.22*

F2: Transactional

0.28

0.31

0.40 0.66 0.60 0.42

P. 1

Note: *p < 0.05

P. 2

P. 3

0.11

0.24

0.52

Job Satisfaction

Perceived schoolstudents outcome

Figure 2.
The structural model

F3: Passive-avoidant

0.89 0.85 0.60

P. 4

S.1

S.2

S.3

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

Discussion
Summary of findings
The paper examined the relation between teachers perceptions of headteacher
transformational/transactional leadership behaviors, student and school outcomes,
and teacher job satisfaction. Data were collected from a sample of 438 secondary school
teachers in Cyprus, using an adapted version of the MLQ. The results of this research
provided evidence in support of a three-factor model consisting of transformational,
transactional and passive-avoidant forms of leadership. It is important to note the fact
that with respect to Contingent Reward, our findings indicate that this dimension loads
on the transformational rather than on the transactional factor, as found in a number of
studies (Bass, 1985; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001).
Structural equation modeling was used to investigate the direct link between the
three dimensions of leadership behavior represented by the three factors, teachers
perceptions of leader effectiveness, and teacher job satisfaction. Alternative models
were tested, with two causality directions considered: In the first case, leadership
behaviors were considered to have an impact on perceived leader effectiveness and job
satisfaction, while in the second case perceived leader effectiveness and job satisfaction
were seen as leading respondents to identify specific leadership behaviors in their
headteachers. Although, the analysis showed that both models could be validated, it
was decided to adopt the alternative model in which all hypothesized regression
coefficients were statistically significant.
In the second model, both perceived leader effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction
predicted the extent to which the leader was considered to be transformational or
transactional. It thus appears that a situation of general satisfaction with school
leadership and teaching as a profession can lead teachers to identify specific leadership
qualities in their headteachers. Thus, it is possible that in the case of Cyprus, the
traditional conception of cause and effect relationships in transformational leadership
theory may not apply to the extent that has been reported in other countries.
The reason for this may relate to contextual factors: Cyprus is a small country, with
a highly centralized educational system, which limits the extent to which school
leaders can undertake initiatives for the improvement of the school unit. In this
context, a school leader may be considered effective for reasons not directly linked to
the transformational leadership paradigm: For instance, the basis for perceived
effectiveness may relate more to the school leaders effectiveness in dealing with the
central authority (Ministry of Education). In their research, Yammarino et al. (1993)
explained the lack of a link between transactional leadership and appraised or
attributed performance by referring to the limited control leaders at lower hierarchy
levels have over rewards and benefits. In a similar manner, the position of the school
leader in the Cyprus educational system may be responsible for differences in the
relationship between leadership behaviors and perceived leader effectiveness.
In interpreting the findings of the present study, certain methodological
limitations should be taken into account. The main limitations of the research relate
to the nature of the data: the data used in the study were cross-sectional whereas
longitudinal data are needed for rigorous tests of causal hypotheses. Longitudinal
data can provide stronger evidence on the direction of causality in the relation
between leadership behaviors, perceived school leader effectiveness and teacher job
satisfaction. Our findings suggest that the causal links may not necessarily have the
form hypothesized in most research studies. However, more conclusive evidence is
needed on the topic.

Teachers job
satisfaction

523

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

JEA
52,4

Another limitation concerns the fact that data were collected only from teachers,
which did not allow for the adoption of nested multilevel models in statistical analysis.
The utilization of school, teacher and student level data can provide the basis for a
more in-depth examination of the causal links between leadership behaviors and
different types of variables linked to educational units.

524

Implications
Previous research on transformational leadership can also be used to provide an
explanation for the differences between the model presented in this study and the
traditional conception of cause and effect relationships in transformational leadership
theory: Based on their research, Marks and Printy (2003) suggested that
transformational leadership is not sufficient for leader effectiveness, calling for more
studies on ways in which transformational and instructional leadership complement
each other and affect student learning. The results of our analysis indicate that
teachers may not consider transformational leadership behaviors to be sufficient for
effectiveness. Instead, when they consider a leader to be effective based on observed
effects on specific educational outcomes, they are led to identify certain
transformational (and transactional) qualities in their leaders. Consequently, it is
possible that, in the case of Cyprus and in accordance with Marks and Printy (2003),
transformational leadership practices are not sufficient for effectiveness unless
combined with additional leadership behaviors such as those linked to instructional
leadership. In the present study, teacher perceptions suggest that this is the case.
The above interpretation also applies to the link between leadership behaviors and
job satisfaction, as presented in this paper. It appears that in the case of Cyprus, job
satisfaction may be influenced by variables not directly linked to school leadership due
to the fact that the school leader does not offer rewards or benefits to teachers. Previous
research on teacher job satisfaction in Cyprus suggests that centrally determined
extrinsic benefits (such as salaries and vacations) have a major impact on teacher job
satisfaction (Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2004). However, our findings also point to
significant links between job satisfaction and school leadership. In a situation of high
overall job satisfaction, teachers may identify transformational and transactional
qualities in their headteachers.
Overall, the findings point to the need for integrated models of leadership, as
suggested by Leithwood and Sun (2012). They argue that research on leadership effects
on educational outcomes should focus on a range of leadership practices rather than on
whole leadership models. These practices should include transformational and
transactional leadership practices as well as practices associated with instructional
leadership and aimed at the improvement of learning and instruction. Moreover, in
highly centralized systems as is the case in Cyprus, it is important for policy makers to
recognize the limitations of the adoption of popular leadership models and to focus on
the totality of factors that affect teacher job satisfaction and teacher perceptions of
school effectiveness. At the same time, it must be recognized that the centralized nature
of the educational system could be a major weakness in that it may prevent
headteachers from undertaking initiatives for the improvement of the school unit.
The present study points to the importance of investigating the perceptions of
teachers regarding the effectiveness of their headteachers in different contexts. While
teacher perceptions of headteacher effectiveness remain subjective evaluations of
effectiveness, theory and research in educational administration suggests that effective
headteachers will enjoy the support of their teachers. Situational theories, in particular,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

highlight the importance of supportive environments in the effectiveness of leaders

(see, e.g. Fiedler, 1967). It is hoped that additional research will shed more light on
the link between leadership practices, job satisfaction and (perceived) headteacher
effectiveness in different contexts.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), Context and leadership: an
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-295.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Third Edition Manual
and Sampler Set, Mind Garden Inc., Menlo Park, CA.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Barnett, A., Marsh, H. and Craven, R. (2005), What type of school leadership satisfies teachers?
A mixed method approach to teachers perceptions of satisfaction, available at:
www.aare.edu.au/05pap/bar05419.pdf (accessed September 4, 2012).
Barnett, K., McCormick, J. and Conners, R. (2001), Transformational leadership: panacea,
placebo, or problem?, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 24-46.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. (1999), Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through
Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 207-218.
Bogler, R. (2001), The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 662-683.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S. and Frey, D. (2013), Transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, and team performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 270-283.
Brown, T. (2006), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J. and Markham, S.E. (1995), Leadership: the multilevel
approaches, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 251-263.
Downton, J.V. (1973), Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Evers, C.W. and Lakomski, G. (1996), Exploring Educational Administration: Coherentist
Applications and Critical Debates, Elsevier Science, New York, NY.
Eyal, O. and Roth, G. (2011), Principals leadership and teachers motivation: self-determination
theory analysis, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 256-275.

Teachers job
satisfaction

525

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

526

Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2003), Transformational leadership effects
on teachers commitment and effort toward school reform, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 228-256.
Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C. and Whittington, J.L. (2001), A theoretical and empirical extension
to the transformational leadership construct, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22
No. 7, pp. 759-774.
Griffith, J. (2004), Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job
satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 333-356.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hallinger, P. (2003), Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 329-351.
Hallinger, P. and Bryant, D. (2013), Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and
management in East Asia, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 618-637.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A. and Roth, P.L. (2006), How important are job attitudes?
Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 305-325.
Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008), A theoretical and empirical examination of the
transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 501-513.
Ibrahim, A. and Al-Taneiji, S. (2013), Principal leadership style, school performance, and
principal effectiveness in Dubai schools, International Journal of Research Studies in
Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-54.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), The job satisfaction job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Khasawneh, S., Omari, A. and Abu-Tineh, A.M. (2012), The relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational commitment: the case for vocational
teachers in Jordan, Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 1-15.
Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M. and Terborg, J.R. (1995), The effects of transformational leadership on
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 319-333.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1990), Transformational leadership: how principals can help reform
school cultures, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 249-280.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999), The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of
leadership on student engagement with school, Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 679-706.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000), The effects of different sources of leadership on student
engagement in school, in Riley, K. and Louis, K. (Eds), Leadership for Change and School
Reform, Routledge, London, pp. 50-66.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2005), A review of transformational school leadership research,
1996-2005, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 177-199.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2006), Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:
effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices, School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 201-227.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

Leithwood, K. and Sun, J. (2012), The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: a
meta-analytic review of unpublished research, Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 387-423.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Silins, H. and Dart, B. (1993), Using the appraisal of school leaders as an
instrument for school restructuring, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 85-109.
Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1993), Leadership and Information Processing, Routledge, London.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the literature,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Anderson, R.D. (2002), Impact of leadership style and emotions on
subordinate performance, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 545-559.
March, J.G. and Sutton, R.I. (1997), Organizational performance as a dependent variable,
Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 698-706.
Marcoulides, G.A. and Schumacker, R.E. (1996), Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues
and Techniques, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Marks, H.M. and Printy, S.M. (2003), Principal leadership and school performance: an
integration of transformational and instructional leadership, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 370-397.
Muthen, L.K. and Muthen, B.O. (1998-2007), Mplus Users Guide, Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles, CA.
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006), Transformational and transactional leadership
effects on teachers job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behavior in primary schools: the Tanzanian case, School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-177.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKensie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenships behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual
and empirical extensions, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-354.
Riketta, M. (2008), The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis
of panel studies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 472-481.
Rowold, J. and Heinitz, K. (2007), Transformational and charismatic leadership: assessing the
convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 121-133.
Seltzer, J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), Transformational leadership beyond initiation and
consideration, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 693-703.
Silins, H. and Mulford, B. (2002), Leadership and school results, in Leithwood, K. and Hallinger, P.
(Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration,
Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 561-612.
Silins, H.C. (1992), Effective leadership for school reform, The Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 317-334.
Silins, H.C. (1994), The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership
and school improvement outcomes, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 272-298.
Silins, H.C., Mulford, B. and Zarins, S. (2002), Organizational learning and school change,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 613-642.
Stewart, J. (2006), Transformational leadership: an evolving concept examined through the works
of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration
and Policy, Vol. 54 No. 54, pp. 1-29, available at: www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf_
files/stewart.pdf

Teachers job
satisfaction

527

JEA
52,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 23:07 26 September 2014 (PT)

528

Tejeda, M., Scandura, T.A. and Pillai, R. (2001), The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties and
recommendations, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 31-52.
Thoonen, E.E.J., Sleegers, P.J.C., Oort, J.J., Peetsma, T.T.D. and Geijsel, F.P. (2011), How to
improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 496-536.
Tucker, M.L., Bass, B.M. and Daniel, L.G. Jr (1992), Transformational leaderships impact on
higher education satisfaction, effectiveness, and extra effort, in Clark, K.E., Clark, M. and
Campbell, D.P. (Eds), Impact of Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro,
NC, pp. 169-176.
Yammarino, F.J., Sprangler, W.D. and Bass, B.M. (1993), Transformational leadership and
performance: a longitudinal investigation, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 81-102.
Yukl, G. (1999), An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000), Development and effects of transformational
leadership in adolescents, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 211-226.
Zembylas, M. and Papanastasiou, E. (2004), Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 357-374.
About the author
Maria Eliophotou Menon is an Associate Professor in Educational Administration and Policy.
She has taught in higher education for more than 20 years and currently coordinates the
Postgraduate program in Educational Administration and Evaluation offered by the Department
of Education of the University of Cyprus. Her research interests include leadership and job
satisfaction in primary and secondary education, concerns of beginning teachers, and student
decision-making processes in higher education. She has published widely in academic journals
and participated in international research projects on educational administration and leadership.
Associate Professor Maria Eliophotou Menon can be contacted at: melmen@ucy.ac.cy

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints