The Relationship Of Leadership Styles Of Selected West Virginia Deans

This article reviews research findings that examined the relationship between leadership styles of selected West Virginia deans or department chairs (those who were immediate supervisors of the respondents) and self-reported faculty job satisfaction. The results of the study indicated that there was a relationship between leadership styles and faculty job satisfaction. The strongest relationships were those (a) between extrinsic job satisfaction and both dimensions of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), (b) between overall job satisfaction and both dimensions of the LBDQ, and (c) between intrinsic job satisfaction and leadership style of the dean or department chair. Analysis of the demographic variables of the study demonstrated that only the number of years the respondent had served under the current dean or department chair. Leadership, while often offered as the solution to most organizational problems (Bolman & Deal, 1992), appears to be problematic across the United States (Green, 1997; MacTaggert, 1994; Maxcy, 1994). Traditional measures of leadership indicate that leadership in higher education is in serious trouble as well (Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989; Tucker, Bass, & Daniel, 1992). Leaders in higher education have been greatly criticized for their failure to apply the literature on leadership and management to maintain and advance their institutions in today’s increasingly complex internal and external environments (Tucker, et al., 1992). Despite much research on leadership behaviors, no clear-cut conclusions have been rendered as to what specific leader behaviors consistently contribute to productivity within an institution (Ehrle & Bennett, 1988). However elusive the concept, leadership has long been recognized as the stalwart of any organization. In 1947, The Report of the President’s Commission on Higher Education for Democracy emphasized the need for effective leadership in the following quote: We cannot pin our faith on social drift, hoping that if each individual pursues his own ends with intelligence and good will, things will somehow right themselves. We cannot rely on the process of automatic adjustment. We must develop a positive social policy, both within and among nations. We must plan, with intelligence and imagination, the course we are to take toward the kind of tomorrow we want. (Goodchild & Weschler, 1989, p. 636) The research conducted in this study attempted to identify leadership styles of West Virginia deans or department chairs and the effect of those styles on self-reported job satisfaction of departmental faculty members. To complete the study, three instruments were used, including The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), The Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS), and a demographic survey. Leadership Styles The most influential research in leadership behavior, incorporating the surveying of subordinates to gain perceptions on leadership, was pioneered in the 1950s and 1960s at the Ohio State University (Bensimon et al., 1989; Yukl, 1989). The Personnel Research Board of the Ohio State University, as one of the Ohio State Leadership Project studies, developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) at a time when little in the way of leadership theory existed (Halpin, 1957; Stodgill, 1963, 1970, Yukl, 1989). Since the development of the LBDQ, much of the research on leadership behavior has followed the pattern established by the pioneering research at the institution (Yukl, 1989). The LBDQ was established as a method whereby group members would be able to describe the leader behavior of designated leaders in formal organizations (Halpin, 1957; Stodgill, 1963). The instrument contained items describing the manner in which a leader might behave, along with the respondent rating of the way in which the leader is perceived to engage in each type of behavior (Halpin, 1957). Two broadly defined dimensions of behaviors were established as encompassing a wide variety of leader characteristics. Those dimensions were Initiating Structure and Consideration (Charters, 1963; Gorton & Snowden, 1993; Halpin, 1957; Hemphill, 1955; Stodgill, 1963, 1970; Yukl, 1989). Initiating Structure refers to the leader’s perceived ability to clearly define the leader’s role and to let followers know what is expected (Gorton & Snowden, 1993; Hemphill, 1955; Stodgill, 1963, 1970). The Initiating Structure dimension of leadership involves attempting to set well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and ways of getting the job completed (Halpin, 1957; Hemphill, 1955). Initiating Structure behaviors describe leaders who are task-oriented and stress the global activities of directing, planning, coordinating, and problem solving (Bensimon et al., 1989; Gorton & Snowden, 1993; Hemphill, 1955). The Consideration dimension of leadership behavior refers to behavior indicating friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in the interactions between the leader and members of the group (Halpin, 1957; Hemphill, 1955; Stodgill, 1963). This dimension of leadership behavior is more relationship-oriented (Bensimon et al, 1989; Yukl, 1989). Job Satisfaction Workers at every level form impressions regarding whether they are valued and respected from important cues that emanate from their environment, especially those that come from the leaders directly above them (Gmelch & Miskin, 1993; Fryer & Lovas, 1991). These impressions are translated into feelings, either positive or negative, that become the principal component of a worker’s morale. Morale is a key factor in determining an employee’s commitment to work and the degree of job satisfaction to which he or she professes (Fryer & Lovas, 1991). In higher education, faculty morale, based on Fryer and Lovas’ (1991) contentions, results from perceptions faculty members hold regarding their value to the dean/department chair. Faculty members will be motivated (a) when given a chance to feel intellectually and emotionally challenged by their work, (b) when perceiving opportunities for personal and professional growth, (c) when afforded the opportunity to participate in decisions affecting their own development, (d) when encouraged to feel they are part of an important ongoing enterprise, and (e) to know that they make a difference and are given recognition and visibility (Lucas, 1994). These motivational needs of faculty, addressed through the interactions with their dean or department chair, are believed to contribute to faculty personal growth and development, job satisfaction and willingness to change (Kearney & Hays, 1994). Questions In order to determine the relationships between leadership styles and job satisfaction, parameters for the study were established by the following questions: 1. What is the relationship of the dean or department chair’s leadership style to subordinate’s job satisfaction? 2. What is the relationship between extrinsic job satisfaction as reported on the MCMJSS and leadership style when the perceived leadership style relates more strongly to the Consideration dimension? What is the relationship when the leadership style relates more strongly to the Initiating Structure dimension? 3. What is the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction as reported on the MCMJSS and leadership style when the perceived leadership style relates more strongly to the Consideration dimension ? What is the relationship when the leadership style relates more strongly to Initiating Structure? 4. What is the relationship between the demographic variables of the study to overall job satisfaction? What is the relationship of the demographic variables to extrinsic job satisfaction? What is the relationship of the demographic variables to intrinsic job satisfaction? Method Population and Sample The population of this study consisted of full-time faculty members at 11 public institutions of higher education in the state of West Virginia, which granted baccalaureate degrees and beyond. The population for this study consisted of 2,279 faculty members. Of the 328 randomly selected faculty members in the sample, 165 returned completed, usable survey responses. This number represented a return rate of 50% plus 1. Of the 165 responses, 116 were returned after the first mailing and accounted for 69% of the returns. Twenty-six completed surveys, 16% of the total number of returns, were received after the second mailing and the remaining 23 surveys, 15% of the total returns, were collected by using telephone interviews. Analysis of the data indicated that all 11 institutions were represented.