Leadership Styles as Predictors of Job Involvement in Teachers

The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of perceived positive styles of leadership, that is, transformational and transactional leadership, on job involvement of 250 teachers (men = 146, women = 104) from public and private sector colleges and universities of the Punjab province. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1994) and Job Involvement Scale (Kanungo, 1982) were used to measure study variables. Analysis revealed that both transformational and transactional leadership styles and their subfacets had significant positive relation to job involvement. The results of multiple regression showed that two subfacets of transformational leadership that is, Idealized Influence (attributed) and Intellectual Stimulation and two subfacets of transactional leadership, that is, Contingent Reward and Management by Exception (active) were positive predictors of job involvement among teachers whereas Management by Exception (passive) was a negative predictor of job involvement. Furthermore, the study also found that transactional leadership style was the stronger predictor of job involvement as compared to the transformational leadership style. Nonsignificant differences in terms of gender were observed among teachers for effects of leadership styles on their job involvement.

Today employees are the top most priority for the organizations. In order to be more productive, the organizations believe in creativity and innovation; therefore, the traditional roles of employees, that is, they have to work on typical set rules for years, with a great distance in a leader and subordinate, are no more effective and the organizations are finding new ways of working in order to attain, retain, and motivate their employees. In relation to this, one can understand that competitive and committed workforce is the key to organizational success (Luthan & Stajkovic, 1999; Pfeffer, 1994), and there are multiple things that affect the involvement of workers or employees within a job that work for different organizations across different sectors. Employees’ involvement level within a job can be increased, if the employee considers himself an important employee of organization and this considerate thinking is very much related to the leadership styles of his/her authorities. Pakistan is a developing country, and the rate of development is low and education is one of the main factors that affect a nation’s speed of development. The sense or soul of education is totally incomplete without the concept of the teacher; a teacher is a person that provides the base of education to students on each step. Stronger base will eventually emerge into better education and better education level means a developed nation in future. Now the important thing is the effective guideline for teachers, the way in which teachers are being guided by their heads or principals, directly reflects in their job performance, and again the job performance is the way of teaching that is providing a base for education. In any organization, leaders have the power to caste great influence on their employees. The present study is conducted on educational institutes, where teachers work as employees.

Perceived Leadership Styles
The leader is a person that realizes change and develops strategies to effect change. S/he directs or coordinates the working of a group towards a shared goal by providing them vision in need of the times (Melum, 2002; Snyder & Shorey, 2003). In modern times, organizations are continuously in a phase of rapid development which often leads to a large scale transition; hence, the supervision of farsighted leadership is vital for success in a creative and innovative manner (Pfeffer, 1994). According to Jones and Harter (2005), “engagement leads to human benefits for the individual who experience it,” (p. 79) and as supervisors have to make contact and influence on their subordinate on a daily basis, therefore, their style of leadership is more important for the sustenance of motivational abilities of their employees (Birnbaum, 1992; Koppula, 2008). Research revealed that traditional methods of leadership and supervision are not widely used now (see, e.g., Leithwood, 1992). Therefore, organizational and behavioral psychologists are interested to find effective managerial trends to spice up employees enthusiasm and commitment level. Currently organizations are in need of such leaders who can develop commitment among their followers and would have a direct effect on employees and organizational outcomes. Two most important positive leadership styles emerged from the full range leadership theory are transformational and transactional that focuses on a positive relationship with their subordinates, and they also like the creativity and freedom of expressivity (Bass, 1990a).

Transformational leadership comprises of five subdimensions including 1) Idealized Influence (attributed) which refers to the influence of leader on subordinates, self-confidence of leader, and consistency in behaviours thus followers try to imitate their leaders, give them respect, and admire them; 2) Idealized Influence (behavior) that is related to leader’s behaviors, self-less acts, and moral considerations for constructing a common vision about the organization; 3) Inspirational Motivation is that competent leader shares his vision, encourages hard work, and defines vital goals clearly; 4) Intellectual Stimulation that refers to the leader stimulation of individuals to be able to be creative and excellent by introducing ideas and early solutions to problems; and 5) Individualized Consideration that refers to leader relations and joint individuals’ requirements with the organizational purpose by taking special interest in subordinates’ needs of growth and accomplishment (Bass & Avolio 1994).

Transformational leaders, through stimulation, persuade their subordinates to take on the organizational revolution as their own, they focus on future needs and have great foresightedness (Bass, 1990b). Transformational leaders prepare real and challenging purposes and enlarge the sense of identification, competency, and worthiness among job holders (Judge & Bono, 2000). According to Bass (as cited in Berson & Linton, 2003), the effective transformational leaders encourage their followers to excel by use of intellectual stimulation, vision, and individualized consideration. Gill, Flaschner, and Shacha (2006) explained that burn out and job stress can be reduced by using the transformational leadership style in organizations. Furthermore, transformational style of leadership has been extensively found to be positively related to a variety of outcomes in various situations and organizations. (Avolio, Bass, Walumbwa, & Zhu, 2004; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002) as it alters vision into realities, values into actions, obstacles into innovations, and successful leadership helps to develop a climate in which followers are well motivated to transform challenges into success. Social exchange theory and social learning theory provide the base for this leadership style (Deluga, 1992).

On the other hand, Transactional style of leadership is extended from transformational leadership. In transactional leadership, there exists a reciprocal exchange process involving a leader and his/her subordinates; high-performance expectations are being expressed, a stimulating image is articulated, and individualized support is provided (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transactional style comprises of three main factors, Contingent Reward given by the leader to his subordinates upon goal achievement (Bass, 1985a; Bass & Avolio, 1997). Management by Exception (active) based on continuous monitoring of subordinates for error free and excellent flow of work; and Management by Exception (passive) where leader only interferes when mistake occur (Bass & Avolio, 1995). It is evident that provision of multiple rewards creates a suitable degree of commitment, loyalty, and job involvement of followers (Bass, 1985b). Moreover, management by exception (active) is a more positive predictor of employee motivation, commitment, and organizational goal achievement as compared to management by exception (passive) where there is no continuous monitoring rather the leader interferes only when subordinates conduct a mistake (Reid, Roberts, & Hilliard, 1998).

Work on perceived leadership style is getting focused by many researchers in the recent past, for example, Shams-ur-Rehman, Shareef, Mahmood, and Ishaque (2012) examined the impact of perceived leadership style on employee commitment among staff of educational institutes in Pakistan and found that both transformational and transactional leadership styles have positive relationship with organizational commitment. Their results further showed that transformational leadership was slightly strongest predictor for commitment. The relationship of perceived leadership style and employee participation was studied by Mitonga-Monga, Coetzee, and Cilliers (2012) who found positive relationship between the two. It is evident that employees’ involvement level within the job can be increased (Hellerriegel, et al. 2004) if the employee considers himself an important employee of organization and this considerate thinking (Schepers, Wetzels, & De Ruyter, 2005) is very much related to the leadership styles of his/her authorities (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).

Job Involvement
The organizational leaders strive hard to align organizational strategies and objectives with employee’s behaviors in order to stay competitive and more involved (Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; Warech & Tracey 2004). Empirical evidence yields that more involvement in job means a person is fully enjoying his job (Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1995; Brown, 1996; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Job involvement has been defined as the degree to which a person identifies psychologically with his work, or the importance of work in his total self-image, furthermore, as the degree to which a person’s work performance affects his self-esteem (Rottenberry & Moberg, 2007). High job involvement helps to increase organizational output by making it a pleasant experience (Emery & Barker, 2007) under supportive supervision (Pringle, 1994; Hall, 2010). Furthermore, individual decision to leave or opt for a particular job as a career is also influenced by job involvement (Hafer & Martin, 2006; Knight, Crutsinger, & Kim 2006). The relationship among job involvement, employee satisfaction, and firm’s success is widely discussed in past studies (Diefendorff et al., 2002; Igbaria, Parasuraman, & Badawy, 1994; Riipinen, 1997). Kanungo (1982) established his own understanding of the situation in which he suggested that employee personal success and organizational success are linked phenomena and cannot be achieved without employee job involvement.

Mester, Visser, Roodt, and Kellerman (2003) found a significant relationship of transactional leadership style with organizational commitment. Atta and Khan (2015) found that both transformational and transactional leadership styles were the positive predictors for organizational citizenship behavior. This suggests that perception of employees about the leadership style of their leader is of crucial importance.

Numerous researchers found that besides teacher’s involvement in the job, principal’s leadership style also cast direct and long lasting effects on students’ academic record, the repute of the institute and overall achievement of institute (see, e.g., Day, 2000; Reid et al., 1998; Sergiovanni, 1992). Hence, most notable factor is that job commitment and job involvement is mostly affected by the leadership style of the principal or head of department (Singh & Billingsley, 1996); however, if leaders provide less professional support and acknowledgement, this will bring a decrease in job involvement of teachers (Elliott & Crosswell, 2001). Studies conducted in schools highlighted the relationship of teacher and principal that can be strengthened by adopting transformational leadership styles (see, e.g., McCormick, 2004). Leadership casts direct influence on teachers’ commitment and indirect influences on teacher efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006). However, along with teachers’ commitment and self-efficacy, positive leadership styles also cast impact on the overall efficacy of the institute, commitment, and mission of the society (Antonakis & House, 2002; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Ross & Gray, 2006; Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990).

Still (1997) observed that, in terms of leadership effectiveness, women leaders have traditionally been viewed as inferior to their male colleagues. However, evidence is emerging that women are more likely to display transformational leadership behaviors (Ayman, Korabik, & Morris, 2009), and are therefore, better equipped to affect a culture change in which innovation and lifelong learning are the strategic objectives. It was further found that female leaders, on the average, are more democratic and participative than their male counterparts (Eagly, Johnson, & van Engen, 2003). As far as transactional (or incentive-based) leadership is concerned, a meta-analysis also showed that female managers tend to motivate followers with positive, reward-based incentives. Men, in contrast, offer a larger measure of less effective and more negative threat-based incentives. (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Desvaux & Devillard, 2008). This notion puts forward the realization that correlation between leadership and employee attitudes such as organizational commitment and job involvement has been well documented in prior research (Dumdum et al., 2002; Judge & Piccoclo, 2004; Lowe, Kroek, & Sivasubraman, 1996),

The social interaction between supervisors and subordinates provide the base for leadership. The component that mainly affects the leadership style is the social interaction (Merchant, 2012). According to many researches, no such significant differences exist in the leadership style of men and women rather the differences exist in the environmental factors (Foels, Driskell, Mullen, & Salas, 2000). Many researchers also agree on the differences that are mainly due to different approaches that people use at work place. Mostly, men prefer to use ‘task-oriented’ approach, while women, usually, rely on quality of interpersonal relationships between leader-follower relationships (Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Gray, 1992). Women have also been discussed as captivating a more ‘take care’ approach of leadership and men mainly rely on ‘take charge’ approach (Hater & Bass, 1998; Martell & DeSmet, 2001; Yukl, 2002). Researchers have explored that women tend to appear as more transformational leaders and men usually use a transactional leadership approach (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Rosener, 1990). These findings are also supported by Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) and also discussed by Khan, Aslam, and Riaz (2012).

In the aspect of job involvement, gender has mostly mixed designs (Knoop, 1986; Lambert, 1991). However, in an earlier study (Lorence, 1987) found that women scored higher on job involvement. Moreover, superiority of women in the context of job involvement is also discussed by Singh, Finn, and Goulet (2004). Moreover, the previous experience of relative job also casts direct effect on present job involvement (Dokko, Wilk, & Rothbard, 2009; Goldsmith & Venum, 2002; Quinones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995). According to Ooi, Arumugam, Safa, and Bakar (2007) experience is an important factor because it can enhance the employees’ job involvement, ease the updating of skills, increase the sense of belonging, benefit and well-being, maximize commitment towards the organization and build the organization’s competitiveness.

Yet, some gaps need to be filled to seek out the relationship between transactional and transformational styles of leadership with all their respective factors and job involvement in Pakistan. In most of our educational institutes after getting a job one has to complete probation time that is mostly 2 years. After probation time s/he gets status of regular employee. For this reason such teachers are included in sample that have at least 2 years of job experience. The study is going to investigate the relationship between perceived leadership styles and teachers’ job involvement in educational institutes of Pakistan.

Hypotheses

Following hypotheses were formulated for present research:

1.	Perceived transformational leadership will positively predict job involvement
2.	Perceived transactional leadership will positively predict job involvement

METHOD

Sample
A correlational research survey design was executed to conduct the present study. The study was completed in one step. The data was collected through purposive sampling technique. A sample of 250 lecturers (men = 146, women = 104) from private and public post graduate colleges and universities of Sargodha, Joharabad, Lahore, Chakwaal, and Bhakkar districts was drawn. Only individuals with at least up to two years’ experience (completion condition of probation) of working in his/her institute and with not less than 26 years of age (M = 28.3, SD = 7.3) were included in the sample.

Instruments
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). This was constructed by Bass and Avolio (1994) and was used to measure transformational leadership and transactional leadership styles. It is a self-report measure of 36 items divided into three subscales. Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-faire leadership styles. Transformational leadership styles contain 20 items (item nos. 2, 8, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21 25, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 31); Transactional leadership styles includes 12 items (item no. 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 35); and Laissezfaire leadership styles contain 4 items (item no. 5, 7, 28, 3). As per study requirements only two subscales, that is, transformational leadership style and transactional leadership style were used. Transformational leadership style comprises five subdimensions including Idealized Influence (attributed) (item no. 10, 18, 21, 25), Idealized Influence (behavior) (item no. 6, 14, 23, 34), Inspirational Motivation (item no. 9, 13, 26, 36), Individual Stimulation (item nos. 32, 30, 8, 2), and Individualized Consideration (item no. 31, 29, 19, 15).

Transactional leadership style consists of three subdimensions which include Contingent Reward (item no. 35, 16, 11, 1), Management by Exception (active) (item no. 27, 24, 22, 4), and Management by Exception (passive) (item no. 3, 12, 17, 20). The literature supports MLQ as a reliable and valid measure for the assessment of leadership styles (Antonakis, et al., 2003). Response format is Likert type that varies from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). According to the requirements of present study, MLQ was modified to measure perceived leadership styles. As all the ‘I’ are replaced with S/he, for example ‘I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts’ was modified into ‘S/he provides others with assistance in exchange for their efforts’.

Job Involvement Scale
Job Involvement Scale (Kanungo, 1982a) is a uni-dimensional scale consists of 10 items and has no subscale. English version was used in study. Response format is Likert type that varies from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). High score on the scale yield high job involvement and vice versa. Kanungo (1982b) reported the questionnaire to have reasonably high levels of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity.

Procedure
The study was carried out following ethical considerations and the sample was approached directly by the researcher after having consent for participation and acquiring permission from the concerned authorities (principals of colleges and heads of university departments). Participants were briefed about the goals and procedure of the study and were assured about the confidentiality of information. They were asked to fill out scale booklets inclusive of demographic sheet and scales of study. It was made clear to them that questionnaire is about their perception of their heads’ leadership style. It was emphasized that questions should be answered sincerely with genuine responses to reflect their true feelings. In the end, participants were thanked for giving their valuable time and cooperation.

RESULTS

The data of 250 teachers were analyzed to examine the relationship between leadership styles and job involvement. Pearson correlation, multiple regression, t-test, and ANOVA analyses were computed for hypothesis testing and to achieve the study objectives. Data of the study was further analyzed with hierarchical regression to see the strongest predictive ability of leadership styles for job involvement among teachers.

Table 1:	Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Coefficients, and Correlation Matrix for Study Variables (N = 250)
Note. TRANSF = Transformational Leadership; IIA = Idealized Influence (attributed); IIB = Idealized Influence (behavior); IM = Inspirational Motivation; IS = Individual Stimulation; IC = Individualized Consideration; TRANS = Transactional Leadership; CR = Contingent Reward; MBE-A = Management by Exception Active; MBE-P = Management by Exception Passive; JI = Job Involvement *p < .05, **p< .01

Table 1 show that all scales are reliable and valid measures of study. The alpha reliabilities range from .40 to .87. In the Table, reliabilities of subscales having less number of items are low.

Results in Table 1 show transformational leadership is positively related with idealized Influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, individual stimulation, individualized consideration, transactional leadership, contingent reward, management by exception active, management by exception passive, and job involvement. It further shows that transformational and transactional leadership styles along with their subfactors have significant positive relationship with job involvement, which laid foundation for the present study hypotheses to be confirmed. The strong correlation of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and job involvement with their perspective subscales also elucidate and evidence for the validity of these measures. On the bases of results of correlation, it was decided to conduct the regression analyses to confirm the predictability of leadership styles for job involvement among teachers.

Table 2:	Multiple Regression Analysis for Perceived Leadership Styles as Predictor of Job Involvement of Teachers (N=250)
TRANSF = Transformational Leadership; IIA = Idealized Influence (attributed); IIB = dealized Influence (behavior); IM = Inspirational Motivation; IS = Individual Stimulation; IC = Individualized Consideration; TRANS = Transactional Leadership; CR = Contingent Reward; MBE-A = Management By Exception (active); MBE-P = Management By Exception (passive) **p < .01, ***p < .001, df = (2, 248)

Table 2 indicates that Model 1 comprises of IIA, IIB, IC, and IS is found to be significant (F (5,245) = 14.69, p < .001), causing the 22 % variance in job involvement (∆ R² = .22). Among subfacets only IIA yields significant result. Results further show that Model 2 which include CR, MBE-a, and MBE-p also demonstrate significant results (F (3,247) = 22.62, p < .001) and account for 41% variance in job involvement. All the variables of model 2 are significant predictors of job involvement.

Table 3:	Perceived Transformational, Transactional Leadership and Job Involvement in Male and Female Teachers (N = 250)
Note. df = 248

Results in Table 3 show nonsignificant mean differences in perception of transformational and transactional leadership styles and job involvement on the basis of gender.

DISCUSSION

The integration of the two research variables provided some insights into the possible relationships between perceived leadership styles and job involvement. The data collected in this study suggested that there is a significant positive relationship between transactional and transformational leadership with job involvement and they are strong predictors of job involvement among teachers which confirms study hypothesis. These results are in line with Trott and Windsor (1999) who found that nurses were more satisfied with the transformational leadership style and level of job involvement increased as the leader used more participative leadership style. However, in the present study, both styles appeared to have the same importance. Present study further explored the subfacets of leadership styles for predicting job involvement and Idealized Influence (attributed), a subfacet of transformational leadership was found to be a significant positive predictor of job involvement among teachers. It can be inferred that if the leader sets high standards for emulation, employees give him respect and trust instills pride and faith in followers, provides a vision and a sense of mission. These finding are also supported by the findings of McGuire and Kennerly (2006) and Moe, Pappas, and Murray (2007) showing that Idealized Influence had significant correlations with motivation and positive attitudes in job and achieving organizational goals. Chen and Baron’s (2006) study also supports that leaders who used idealized influence act as instrumental in ensuring their followers success, and that they were quite satisfied with their jobs; they also suggested that Idealized Influence has positive effect on organizational leadership style. Present study further found that Idealized Influence (behavior) which includes the leaders’ beliefs, standards, ethical considerations, moral behavior, altruistic acts, and is based on establishing a common vision was nonsignificant in predicting job involvement. The hypothesis is not accepted in the study. The possible reasons could be that because each person has his own values and beliefs and by only copying the leader, each employee cannot change himself so level of involvement in job also remained unchanged. Another reason could be that there are very few leaders in educational institutes who change themselves according to the aims of their institutes, so the teachers cannot follow them properly. Moreover, results revealed that Inspirational Motivation was nonsignificant in predicting job involvement though they were highly correlated. According to Thomas (2000), followers always demand intrinsic motivation from their leader, as it helps them to be fully involved in their jobs, and if it is not provided properly there comes a decline in job outcomes.

Present study also found Intellectual Stimulation to be significant in predicting job involvement. Behavior of employees in regard to innovation, is closely related to transformational style of leadership which ultimately has a strong impact on employees, their creativity levels and on the organizations (Lale & Arzu, 2009; Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010). Contrary to literature, where Individualized Consideration is indicated as a very important leadership behavior at organizations and working sectors (Sarros, Gray, & Denston, 2000), in present research it was nonsignificant in predicting job involvement among teacher though it was also significantly related to job involvement of teachers. One of the reasons for this may be said as in developing countries like Pakistan there still is a prevailing environment of following the set rules in most of the institutes. Heads are sometimes unable to fill communication gaps with their employees, they cannot let their employees to get joint about organizational purpose. Individualized Consideration is also affected if leader does not take care about his employees’ needs of growth and accomplishment

The second hypothesis of study was that transactional leadership style would positively predict job involvement was accepted. The relationship of transactional leadership includes a series of exchanges between leader and follower; transactional leaders clarify roles to employees, give them assignments and then focus their energies on to enhance organizational productivity and use rewards or punishments to influence the subordinates (Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998; Trott & Windsor, 1999). The present study also explored the predictive ability of them and found that all three were significant predictors of job involvement. Contingent rewards and management by exception were proved to be positive predictors of job involvement. According to Mayers (2008) reinforcement or rewards that we use, enhance our influencing ability to persuade others. Appreciations, bonuses, promotions, extra facilities all these are the types of positive reinforcement used in organizations. There is a strong evidence for the positive effect of reinforcement in shaping and maintaining adaptive behavior (DeWitt, Aman, & Rojahn, 2008). Leaders’ style of management by exception active shows involvement of teachers or subordinates of any organizations that increases because of their leaders forewarning about potential mistakes. On the other hand, management by exception (passive) was found to be a significant negative predictor of job involvement as the employee feels shaky when the leader intervenes after the occurrence of mistakes. Similar trends were reported by Voon, Lo, Ngui, and Ayob (2011) and Elenkof (2000) who found that Management by Exception (active) was a positive predictor of job outcomes while Management by Exception (passive) is a negative predictor of job outcomes.

The present study also explored the gender differences in the perception of leadership styles. Results indicated nonsignificant gender differences in perception of transformational, transformational leadership, and job involvement among. The empirical literature on the same topic has also supported the present results as Manning (2002) found nonsignificant gender differences in transformational leadership style, even when the self and observer ratings were compared. van Engen, van Der Leeden, and Willemsen (2001) also found nonsignificant gender differences in leadership styles of male and female managers. Though, leadership literature argues that men and women normally do not differ in their leadership styles or abilities, but it is the difference of situational factors due to which it seems that gender differences occur (Foels et al., 2000). The study also observed nonsignificant gender differences in terms of job involvement. Infact, most researches show nonsignificant differences when conditions in job involvement are controlled (Elloy, Everett, & Flynn, 1991; Knoop, 1986; Lambert, 1991). According to Lambert (1991) if job conditions are set constant there comes comparable results of gender differences in job involvement (and job satisfaction). In addition, Sekaran and Mowday (1989) in their study argues that moderating factors of self-esteem and sense of competence on the relationship between job involvement and job satisfaction do not get influenced by gender differences.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

1.	Although, the sample is collected from five different cities but nonserious attitude of respondents has been seen for this reason many questionnaires had to be cut down. Future research should try to collect larger sample that includes more research oriented respondents
2.	The sample was collected from such departments where there was a lack of female staff due to that reason gender equality could not be maintained future research should evaluate this relationship with an equal number of men and women
3.	Questionnaire of full range leadership theory is a self-report measurement, in the present study the questionnaire was filled by the employees and not by the heads themselves as data about perceived leadership styles of heads is required. In any further study questionnaire can also be filled out by the heads or supervisors to check out the biasness

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Leadership styles, like transformational and transactional are an approach of improved interpersonal affiliation of supervisors and subordinates; this is a way to create a higher level of job involvement of employees. This study makes a contribution to our knowledge of leadership in that it evaluates the relationship between leadership styles and employee levels of job involvement. The results indicated a significant relationship of transformational and transactional leadership styles with job involvement of teachers working in different universities and colleges of Pakistan. The study also indicated nonsignificant relationship in the perception of leadership styles and job involvement in male and female teachers.

REFERENCES

1. Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). An analysis of the full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.) Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
2. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
3. Atta, M., & Khan, M. J. (2015). Leadership styles as determinants of organizational citizenship behavior among public sector university teachers. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 35(1), 273-286.
4. Avolio, B. J., Bass, F., Walumbwa, W., & Zhu, J. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Technical report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for MLQ Form 5x-Short (3rd ed.). Redwood: Mind Garden.
5. Ayman, R., Korabik, K., & Morris, S. (2009). Is transformational leadership always perceived as effective? Male subordinates’ devaluation of female transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 852-879.
6. Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
7. Bass, B. (1985b). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
8. Bass, B. (1990a). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications, (3^rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
9. Bass, B. M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
10. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Newbury Park: Sage.
11. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood: Mind Garden.
12. Bass, M. B., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development. Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. California: Mind Garden.
13. Berson, Y., Linton, J. (2003). An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R & D environments. Proceeding of Conference on Managing Technologically Driven Organizations: The Human Side of Innovation and Change(pp. 410-414). New York: Engineering Management Society
14. Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency (1^st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255.
16. Chen, H. C., & Baron, M. (2006). Nursing directors' leadership styles and faculty members' job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(10), 404-411.
17. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
18. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: An analysis of a decade’s research on gender, American Psychologist, 39, 105-116.
19. Deluga, R. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchanges with laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership in naval environments. In K. Clark, M. Clark, & D. Campbell, (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 237-247). Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership
20. Desvaux, G., & Devillard, S. (2008).Women matter 2: Female leadership, a competitive edge for the future. France: McKinsey & Company.
21. DeWitt, M. B., Aman, M. G., & Rojahn, J. (2008). Effects of reinforcement contingencies on performance of children with mental retardation and attention problems. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9, 101-115.
22. Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Organizational Behavior, 23, 93-108.
23. Dokko, G., Wilk, S. L., & Rothbard, N. P. (2009). Unpacking prior experience: How career history affects job performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 51-68.
24. Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio, and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35-66). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
25. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781-797.
26. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
27. Eagly, A. H., Johnson, B. T., & van Engen, (2003). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
28. Elenkof, D.S. (2000). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55, 467-480
29. Elliott, B. & L. Crosswell. (2001, March). Commitment to teaching australia perspective to the interplays of the professional and the personal in teachers’ lives. Paper presented at the International Symposium on teacher commitment at the European conference on educational research, Little, France.
30. Elloy, D., Everett, J. & Flynn, R. (1991). An examination of the correlates of job involvement. Group and Organization Management, 16, 160-178.
31. Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007). Effect of commitment, job involvement, and teams on customer satisfaction and profit. Team Performance Management, 13, 3-4.
32. Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration. Small Group Research, 31, 676-702.
33. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1995). Job stressors, job involvement and employee health: A test of identity theory, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 1-11.
34. Gill, A. S., Flaschner, A. B., & Shacha, M. (2006). Mitigating stress and burnout by implementing transformational-leadership. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 469-481.
35. Goldsmith, A. H., & Veum, J. R. (2002). Wages and the composition of experience. Southern Economic Journal, 69(2), 429-443.
36. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in a relationship. New York: HarperCollins.
37. Hafer, J. C., & Martin, T. N. (2006). Job involvement or affective commitment: A sensitivity analysis study of apathetic employee mobility. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 8(1), 2-19.
38. Hall, J. L. (2010). Teaching with music: An alternative pedagogy for leadership educators. Journal Leadership Studies, 3, 108-110.
39. Hartog, D. N., & Van Muijen, J. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-35.
40. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1998). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.
41. Hellerriegel, D., Jackson, S. E., Slocum, J. W., Stuade, G., Amos, T., & Klopper, H. B. (2004). Management (2^nd ed.). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
42. Igbaria, M., Parasuramen, S., & Badawy, M. K. (1994). Work experiences, job involvement, and quality of work life among information systems personnel. Management Information System Quarterly, 18(2), 175-201.
43. Jones, R. J., & Harter, K. J. (2005). Race effects. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(2), 78-88.
44. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(5), 751-765.
45. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
46. Jung, D., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544.
47. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 119-238.
48. Khan, J., Aslam, N., & Riaz, N. (2012). Leadership styles as predictors of innovative work behavior. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 17-22.
49. Knight, D. K., Crutsinger, C., & Kim, H. J. (2006). The impact of retail work experience, career expectation, and job satisfaction on retail career intention. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24(1), 33-48.
50. Knoop, R. (1986). Job involvement: An elusive concept. Psychological Reports, 59, 451-6.
51. Koppula, R. (2008). Examining the relationship between transformational leadership and engagement (Unpublished M.Sc Thesis). San Jose State University, USA.
52. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). Leadership challenge (3^rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53. Lale, G., & Arzu, İ. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.
54. Lambert, S. (1991). The combined effects of job and family characteristics on the job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation of men and women workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 341-63.
55. Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 4(5), 8-12.
56. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational leadership and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
57. Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. D. (1999). Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and even rewards. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 49 -57.
58. Manning, T. T. (2002). Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 17(5), 207-216.
59. Martell, R. F., & DeSmet, A. L. (2001). Gender stereotyping in the managerial ranks: A Bayesian approach to measuring beliefs about the leadership abilities of male and female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1223-1231.
60. Mayers, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for three measures of intrinsic, extraneous and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-234.
61. McCormick, B. (2004). The history of systematic reform and higher education. In D. Sunal et al. [Eds.]. Research in science education reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century (pp. 1-25). New Jersey: Information Age Publishing Inc.
62. McGuire, E., Kennerly, S. M. (2006). Nursing managers as transformational and transactional leaders. Nursing Economics, 24(4), 179-185.
63. Melum, M. (2002). Developing high performance leaders. Quality Management in Health Care, 2(1), 55-68.
64. Merchant, K., (2012). How men and women differ: Gender differences in communication styles, influence tactics, and leadership styles. Clare Mount College Senior Theses, Paper 513. Available online:
65. Mester, C., Visser, D., Roodt, G., & Kellerman, R. (2003). Leadership style and its relation to employee attitudes and behaviour. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(2), 72-82.
66. Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). Shedding light on followers’ innovation implementation behavior. Journal of Management Psychology, 25(4), 408-429.
67. Mitonga-Monga, Coetzee, M., & Cilliers, F. V. N. (2012). Perceived leadership style and employee participation in a manufacturing company in the democratic republic of Congo. African Journal of Business Management, 6(15), 5389-5398.
68. Moe, J. L., Pappas, G., Murray, M. (2007). Transformational leadership, transactional culture and political competence in globalizing health care services: A case study of Jordan’s King Hussein Cancer Center. Globalization and Health, 11(3), 1-14.
69. Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee–organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
70. Ooi, K. B., Arumugam, V., Safa, M. S., & Bakar, N. A. (2007). HRM and TQM: Association with job involvement. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 36(6), 939-962.
71. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
72. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
73. Powell, G. N., & Graves, L. M. (2003). Women and men in management (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
74. Pringle, C. D. (1994). An initial test of a theory of individual performance. Psychological Reports, 74, 963-973.
75. Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 887-910.
76. Reid, L. W., Roberts, J. T., & Hilliard, H. M. (1998). Fear of crime and collective action: An analysis of coping strategies. Sociological Inquiry, 68(3), 312-329.
77. Riipinen, M. (1997). The relationship between job involvement and well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 81- 84.
78. Rosener, J. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 5-120.
79. Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822.
80. Rottenberry, P. F., & Moberg, P. J. (2007). Assessing the impact of job involvement on performance. Management Research News, 30(3), 18-27.
81. Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145-158.
82. Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., & Densten, I. L. (2002). Leadership and its impact on organizational culture. International Journal of Business Studies, 10(2), 1-26.
83. Schepers, J. J. L., Wetzels, M. G. M., & De Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance: Do followers practice what leaders preach? Managing Service Quality, 15(6), 496-508.
84. Sekaran, U., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). A cross cultural analysis of the influence of individual and job characteristics on job involvement. International Review of Applied Psychology, 30, 51-64.
85. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Why we should seek substitutes for leadership? Educational Leadership, 5, 41-45.
86. Shams-ur-Rehman, Shareef, A., Mahmood, A., & Ishaque, A. (2012). Perceived leadership styles and organizational commitment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(1), 616-626.
87. Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: Teachers of students with emotional disorders versus other special educators. Remedial and Special Education, 17(1), 37-47.
88. Singh, P., Finn, D., & Goulet, L. (2004). Gender and job attitudes: A re-examination and extension. Women in Management Review, 19(7), 345-355.
89. Snyder, C. R., & Shorey, H. S. (2003). The role of hope in effective leadership. In K. Christensen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp.256-258. New York: Berkshire Publishers.
90. Spector, R. E. (2004). Cultural diversity in health and illness (6^th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
91. Still, L. V. (1997). Glass floors and sticky floors: Barriers to the careers of women in the Australian finance industry. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
92. Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734-745.
93. Thomas, K. W. (2000). Intrinsic motivation at work: Building energy and commitment. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.
94. Tracey, J. B. & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group and Organizational Management, 23(3), 220-237.
95. Trott, M. C., & Windsor, K. (1999). Leadership effectiveness: How do you measure up? Nursing Economics, 17(3), 127-130.
96. van Engen, M. L., van der Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context, and leadership styles: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 581-598.
97. Voon, M. L., Lo, M. C., Ngui, K. S., & Ayob, N. B. (2011). The influence of leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia. International Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24-32.
98. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behaviour: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 381-394.
99. Warech, M., & Tracey, J. B. (2004). Evaluating the impact of human resources: Identifying what matters. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45, 376-387.
100. Yukl, G. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. In L. Neider, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Research in management. (Vol. 2, pp. 139-165). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
101. Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 147-197). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.