A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES ON THE JOB SATISFACTION OF TEACHERS
ASIF IQBAL Dr./2004-22
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB
LAHORE
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES ON THE JOB SATISFACTION OF TEACHERS
ASIF IQBAL
SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN EDUCATION AT THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB LAHORE June 2010
i
DEDICATION I dedicate this work to all those intellectuals, researchers, and inventors on the
GLOBE who are participating and sharing their knowledge to make this world peaceful and prosperous regardless of the race, region, and religion.
ii
Accepted by the Faculty of Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education.
------Director
Doctoral Committee: ______Chairman
______Member
______Member
______Consultant
Dated:
iii
DECLARATION
I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and cited properly and that no material is included which has been submitted for any other award or qualification.
Signature Date
iv
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to compare the impact of principals’ leadership styles on job satisfaction of teachers. The instruments used for this study were the
Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ) and the Job Satisfaction
Scale for Teachers (JSST). The sample of the study was 352 principals and secondary school teachers working under their headship in public sector secondary schools in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. Completed questionnaires were returned from 310 principals and 1188 teachers. So, the response rate was 88%. Data were analyzed by using SPSS version 15 to test the null hypotheses. T -test and one way ANOVA were applied. Statistical and descriptive evidences of the study concluded that 82% of school principals use a democratic style of leadership and only 18% use an autocratic style of leadership. Male and female heads have demonstrated significant differences in their leadership styles. Teachers working under a democratic style of leadership were more satisfied than teachers working under an autocratic style of leadership.
When male and female arts teachers were compared on both styles, there was a significant difference as female teachers were more satisfied. Overall female teachers were more satisfied with their pay, work, working conditions, colleagues, promotion, teaching profession, and supervision than males. Age, qualification, experience, academic work, refresher courses, number of teachers and students in school, and posting had no significant impact on job satisfaction levels of teachers.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah Almighty Who has given me the knowledge and will power to complete the most intricate chore. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Mahr
Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, the supervisor of my thesis to inspire me day and night openly as well as with his silent prayers to complete the work. Without his visionary guidance and silent instigation, it is impossible for me to succeed. My parents and family deserve my thanks, especially my kids Ahtisham, Qurat-ul-Ain, and Uzair who sacrificed the sources of time and money and energize me with silent prayers to dive into deep sea of knowledge. The best group of my colleagues and friends who are always with me in the need of hour deserve special thanks. To day I feel myself at that stage of knowledge which is self actualization. I pray to God to give me the enthusiasm to devote myself in serving the humanity towards the right path.
The group of principals and secondary school teachers have deserved for special thanks who participated voluntarily to accomplish the task with out any incentive for this materialistic world but open their balance for hereafter. Highly qualified faculty of my department deserve special thanks whose expert guidance made me successful.
I would like to pay best compliments to my colleague Syed Zubair Ahmed
Shah for analysis and interpretation of data. All those persons who participated and decorated the work in different ways earn special thanks. Higher Education
Commission is also credited for financial support.
A. I.
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TOPICS PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Objectives of the Study 4
Hypotheses 4
Significance of the Study 5
Delimitations of the Study 6
Operational definitions 6
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 8
Definitions of leadership 8
Forms of leadership 10
Features of leadership 10
Functions of leadership 11
Sources of leader power 11
Chronological emergence of leadership studies 12
Perspectives of leadership 13
Prominent studies of leadership 14
The IOWA leadership studies 14
The Ohio State leadership studies 15
The Michigan studies on leadership styles 16
Difference between leadership and management 17
Difference between leadership style and behaviour 17
vii
Leadership styles 18
Autocratic leadership style 18
Democratic leadership style 20
Laissez faire leadership style 21
Women and leadership 21
Leadership in an international context 23
Research on autocratic and democratic leadership styles 25
Job satisfaction 28
Definitions of job satisfaction 28
Significance of job satisfaction 28
Factors of job satisfaction 29
InterpersonalTheories of job factors satisfaction 30
Intrinsic factors 30
Extrinsic factors 31
Theories of job satisfaction 32
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 33
Herzberg’s two-factor theory 33
Alderfer’s ERG theory 34
McClelland’s theory of needs 35
Measurement of job satisfaction 35
Dimensions of job satisfaction 35
Salary 36
Promotion 37
Supervision 37
viii
Work 38
Work group or colleagues 38
Working conditions 39
Personal determinants of job satisfaction 40
Gender 40
Rural and urban work site 42
The role of teacher 42
The role of student 43
The school size and environment 43
Policy 44
Teacher absenteeism 45
Job satisfaction and educational level 45
Job satisfaction and professional level 46
Rank and job satisfaction 46
Age and job satisfaction 47
Job satisfaction and tenure 48
Experience and job satisfaction 48
Public and private sector 49
Job satisfaction in an international context 49
Leadership styles and teachers’ job satisfaction 51
3 METHODOLOGY 53
Population of the study 53
Sample of the study 53
Hypotheses 56
ix
Instruments of the study 60
Leadership styles measurement questionnaire (LSMQ) 61
Pilot testing of LSMQ 62
J Job satisfaction scale for teachers (JSST) 62
Pilot testing of JSST 63
Demographic survey 63
Validity of instruments 63
Reliability of instruments 64
Collection of data 64
Data analysis 64
Summary 65
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETITION 66
Comparison of leadership styles of male and female
secondary school principals 66
Comparison of the impact of autocratic and democratic
leadership styles on the job satisfaction of teachers 71
Comparison of the impact of demographic variables on
overall job satisfaction of teachers 91
Comparison of the impact of job satisfaction dimensions
with respect to gender, location, and category of teachers 100
5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105
Summary 105
Findings 106
x
Conclusions 117
Discussion 122
Recommendations for further research 126
REFERENCES 127
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
3.1 Item breakup of leadership styles measurement
Questionnaire 61
3.2 Item breakup of job satisfaction scale for teachers 62
4.1 Summary and type of data and method of analysis 66
4.2 Percentage of heads with autocratic and democratic
leadership styles 67
4.3 Percentage of male and female principals working in
urban areas 67
4.4 Percentage of male and female principals working in rural
areas 67
4.5 Autocratic and democratic leadership styles of principals 68
4.6 Leadership styles of male and female principals in rural
areas 69
4.7 Male and female principals in urban areas 69
4.8 Male principals working in urban and rural areas 70
4.9 Female principals in urban and rural areas 71
4.10 Urban and rural teachers working under democratic style 71
4.11 Urban and rural science teachers 72
4.12 Urban and rural arts teachers working under democratic
style 73
4.13 Urban and rural ma le teachers 74
xii
4.14 Urban and rural female teachers 74
4.15 Urban and rural male science teachers 75
4.16 Urban and rural male arts teachers 76
4.17 Urban and rural female science teachers 77
4.18 Urban and rural female arts teachers 77
4.19 Male and female science teachers 78
4.20 Male and female arts teachers 79
4.21 Urban and rural teachers under autocratic style of
leadership 79
4.22 Urban and rural science teachers under autocratic
leadership 80
4.23 Urban and rural arts teachers unde r autocratic leadership 81
4.24 Urban and rural male teachers 82
4.25 Urban and rural female teachers 82
4.26 Urban and rural male science teachers 83
4.27 Urban and rural male arts teachers 84
4.28 Urban and rural female science teachers 84
4.29 Urban and rural female arts teachers 85
4.30 Male and female science teachers 86
4.31 Male and female arts teachers 87
4.32 Male and female teachers under democratic leadership 87
4.33 Male and female teachers under autocratic leadership 88
4.34 Male science and arts teachers under democratic
leadership 89
xiii
4.35 Female science and arts teachers under democratic
leadership 89
4.36 Male science and arts teachers under autocratic leadership 90
4.37 Female science and arts teachers under autocratic
leadership 91
4.38 Job satisfaction level among male and female teachers 92
4.39a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and age among
male teachers 92
4.39b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and age among
female teachers 93
4.40a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and qualification
among male teachers 93
4.40b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and qualification
among female teachers 94
4.41a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and experience
among male teachers 94
4.41b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and experience
among female teachers 95
4.42 Job satisfaction level on work load of secondary school
teachers 95
4.43a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and refresher
courses among male teachers 96
4.43b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and refresher 96
courses in female teachers
xiv
4.44a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and teachers’
strength among males 97
4.44b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and teachers’
strength among females 97
4.45a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and enrollment on
male teachers 98
4.45b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and enrollment on
female teachers 98
4.46 Job satisfaction level on posting of secondary school
teachers 99
4.47 Job satisfaction level with other sources of income 100
4.48 Job satisfaction dimensions with male and female
teachers 100
4.49 Job satisfaction dimensions with urban and rural teachers 102
4.50 Job satisfaction dimensions with science and arts teachers 103
xv 1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
It is an acknowledged fact that teacher under visionary leadership is the vital source in changing the lives of individuals. The research in the area of leadership and job satisfaction is intertwined. Their relevance is vital in strengthening the effectiveness of worldwide educational process. All intellectual development on the globe definitely credited to teachers. Professional competencies, academic skills, and knowledge are optimized with mind satisfaction. Teachers play an essential role in reshaping the economical structure so the state is responsible to motivate the teachers towards the profession with maximum incentives. Many studies have investigated positive impact on the achievement of learners with teacher’s cooperation under the participatory vision of principals (Bolam, McMahon, Pocklington, & Weindling,
1993; Silins & Murray-Harvey, 1999). They affect directly organizational and academic performance of teachers which in turn affects students’ achievement
(Cheng, 2002; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Shum & Cheng, 1997; Starrett, 1993). The teachers as well as administrators in social organizations also affect the achievement of the students (Wiley, 2001). However, it is obvious from many studies that direct affect of principals on students’ achievement is near zero (Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo,
2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Johnson, Livingston, Schwartz, & Slate, 2000;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Witziers, Bosker,
& Kruger, 2003). It can be achieved only with the help of satisfied teachers.
It is essential to investigate relevant leadership styles for understanding the dimensions of leadership. Prior leaders in education accentuated the task dimension behavior that was most relevant to autocratic leadership style while others highlighted
2 the consideration dimension that was similar to democratic leadership style. Personal styles of most leaders were expressed as autocratic or democratic, task-oriented or people -oriented, directive or collegial, initiating structure or consideration (Owens,
2004), and directive or participative (Somech & Wenderow, 2006).
The responsibility of principals is to encourage democratic decisions, improve schools, promotion of self management, and acquaint themselves with the requirements of market orientation (Caldwell, 1998; Elliot, 1992; Silins, 1994).
Autocratic and democratic leaders are compared by their leadership characteristics.
The autocratic leader centralized authority and depend on his/ her administrative power. On the other hand, democratic leader delegates and shares authority as well as power with his followers and encourages their participation in decision making (Daft,
2005). The group led by autocratic leaders performed the tasks well under the presence of leaders only. However, they were displeased with closed autocratic style of leadership. The group performance who was assigned democratic leaders was good and characterized by positive feelings rather than hostility. Under the democratic style of leadership, group members performe d well even the leader was absent and left the group on its own (White & Lippitt, 1960). The participative techniques used by the democratic leader to train and involve group members such that they performed well with or without the leader’s presence. These characteristics of democratic leadership explain why the empowerment of lower employees is a popular trend in companies today.
Thus leaders are categorized as autocratic (boss centered), democratic
(subordinate centered), and combination of both styles. However, while switching from autocratic to democratic or vice versa is not easy. Their styles may be adjusted to cope with the existing situation (Daft, 2005). In a study conducted by House,
3
Wright, and Aditya (1997) reported that although a democratic style of leadership is more popular than an autocratic style all over the world, managers in all countries tend to prefer directive behaviors over persuasive behaviors. The effectiveness of leadership styles depend on behavior instead of personality trait. Leadership training develops suitable behavior. Unfortunately, in the present situation, where every one is trying to make its both ends meet, the teacher is especially a victim of such malicious circumstances. The world is too acquisitive. The teachers who entered in the profession by chance and not by choice feel more satisfaction in government schools as there is less pressure of work, high payment, low supervision, automatic promotion, and mostly home station enjoyment. The most important factor of their satisfaction is job security. Once entering in government job, there are least chances for getting removed (Mehrotra, 2005).
Teachers are human beings attached with several personal and family oriented requirements to be met. Unable to complete those necessities resulted in annoyance, detached behavior, and finally they revolted (Ubom & Joshua, 2004). Concentration on these two leadership styles was made essential on the logic of sound motives
(Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997). They are most relevant in optim izing fruitful results
(Sagie, Zaidman, Amichai-Hamburger, Te’eni, & Schwartz, 2002; Somech, 2005).
They established policy about work and conduct of people (directive leadership), solicited thought provoking teachers’ opinions (participative leadership), and linked with elevated efficiency (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). They also assess the work of teachers under such styles. Finally, they provoke and appreciate teachers’ suggestions while working effectively (Kahai, et al., 1997; Sagie, et al., 2002).
4
Statement of the Problem
Every person works under some authority to be supervised so that his/her ability be increased. Strong and visionary leadership make it possible. Specific leadership style of a leader may divert the abilities of teachers to obtain the optimum objectives. Hence the existing study was planned to compare the impact of autocratic and democratic leadership styles of principals on the level of job satisfaction of teachers working in public sector secondary schools in the province of the Punjab.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study are:
i. To identify the leadership styles of principals of public sector
secondary schools in Punjab.
ii. To determine the impact of leadership styles on the job satisfaction of
secondary school teachers.
iii. To explore the impact of overall job satisfaction with respect to
different demographic variables.
iv. To examine the impact of job satisfaction dimensions with respect to
gender, school location, and teacher category.
Hypotheses
The study was conducted to test 46 null hypotheses. The statements of hypotheses are given in chapter III. First 5 null hypotheses were about identifying the,
“leadership styles of male and female Principals” in public sector secondary schools of the Punjab. The other 28 hypotheses were related to explore the impact of principals’ leadership styles on the job satisfaction of teachers. Further 10 hypotheses were to investigate the impact of overall job satisfaction with different demographic
5 variables. The remaining 3 hypotheses explored the impact of job satisfaction dimensions with respect to gender, school location, and teacher category.
Significance of the Study
As it revealed from many studies, a significant impact of leadership styles on the job satisfaction exists. The performance of satisfied workers/ teachers is much better. Therefore it is important to investigate in the scenario of Pakistan. The study is a valuable addition towards the knowledge and practice especially in Pakistani context as there is a scant empirical data available to highlight the impact and relationship of leadership styles and job satisfaction. The findings of the study will be utilized for training educational leaders in Pakistan. Best fit style is the need of the hour. It is difficult for teachers working under autocratic leadership style to adjust themselves under democratic leaders or vice versa. The study is advantageous in fitting the styles of leadership according to existing situation and help heads-teachers relationship under respective styles. The effectiveness of subordinates under leadership styles depends on the expertise of knowledge in the relevant field.
Visionary leaders control school better and hence their subordinates welcome them with a smiling face. They take the responsibility in an effective way as a part and parcel of school team. The environment under such leaders provides excellent working conditions and makes their team more satisfied. A prominent purpose of this study is to explore problems and hindrances that create difficulties in ef fectiveness. In this way positive aspects will be highlighted for better performance and satisfaction of teachers.
It is true that leader has some God gifted abilities to lead his nation. He may see beyond the decades and take the good news of his success from the future. This
6 study is a milestone in starting the degree programs for educational leaders to improve their effectiveness.
Delimitations
The study was delimited to:
i. the autocratic and democratic leadership styles of school principals.
ii. the principa ls and teachers of male and female public sector secondary
schools located in the Punjab, province of Pakistan.
Operational Definitions
Autocratic Leadership Style
There are several synonymous terms used for autocratic leadership style. Main terms are directive (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; McCrimmon, 2007; Somech &
Wenderow, 2006) and Authoritarian (US Army Handbook, 1973). Autocratic style involves the leader to make decisions, wield supreme power, consign tasks for members, and maintain a master-servant rela tionship with group members (Omolayo,
2007). In this research synonymous terms are used.
Democratic Leadership Style
It is also called participative (Somech & Wenderow, 2006) and consultative leadership style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; McCrimmon, 2007; Sousa, 2003; US Army
Handbook, 1973). Democratic leadership style prefers consultative approach, encourages members of group to participate in decisions, and maintains a master- master relationship with subordinates (Omolayo, 2007).
Teachers’ Job Satisfaction
Teachers’ job satisfaction is an affective relationship of teacher with his/ her teaching role and perceived relationship between the wants and offering from
7 teaching (Zambylas & Papanastasiou, 2004). In this research it specifies for secondary school teachers’ job satisfaction.
Principals
The male and female heads of public sector secondary schools in Punjab.
Rural Area Schools
The public sector secondary schools located outside tehsil and district headquarters in all 36 districts in the Punjab province.
Urban Area Schools
The public sector secondary schools located in tehsil and district headquarters in all districts of the Punjab province.
8
CHAPTER 2
Review of Related Literature
Leadership has been the most popular research topics in organizational behavior since the days of Greek philosophers (McShane & Glinow, 2004). With the rise of twentieth century, the topic of leadership has been the object of extensive study.
Every organization and department is structured in groups of subordinates acting under the control and guidance of leaders (Tsourvakas, Zotos, & Dekoulou, 2007).
Effective leadership must permeate in the organization, not reside in one or two superstars at the top (Bateman & Snell, 2002). Leadership styles have a powerful influence on individual and group behavior (Moorhead & Griffin, 1995). In productive point of view, the most proficient style of leadership is autocratic. When the level of work and morale is needed to maintain well, it is preferred to use democratic leadership style effectively (Omolayo, 2007).
Definitions of Leadership
Leadership has been defined by many researchers and practitioners. The definitions of effective leadership are estimated on the ground that every researcher who has studied the concept defined it (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004). But none has won wider acceptance (Dunnette & Hough, 1992). According to House, Javidan,
Hanges, and Dorfman (2002) an admitted definition of leadership is, “the ability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute to the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members”. A common thread among various definitions of leadership is social influence (Kreitner & Kinicky, 2004). To lead is one of the building blocks for managerial success that improved the understanding in the past few years (Sweeney & McFarlin, 2002). Leadership can be taught and learned
9
(Bateman & Snell, 2002). According to Bennis & Nanus (1985) leadership seems to be marshaling of skills possessed by a majority but used by minority. It is some thing that can be learned by anyone taught to everyone and denied to no one. Any member of the organization may become a leader, it is not the property of the executives (Isaac,
Zerbe, & Pitt, 2001; Pearce & Conger, 2003).
Casimir (2001) defined leadership style as, “a pattern of emphasis, indexed by the frequency or intensity of specific leadership behaviors or attitudes which a leader places on the different leadership functions”.
The leaders in successful situations work and share their sagacity with others to galvanize and create conditions which prop up efforts of teachers ambitiously.
They make momentous decisions for rational stimulation, personal sustainability, mutual ethnicity, and present instructional supervision (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).
The success of students is attributed to most powerful socioeconomic status
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000) and assessment of paramount background factors related to their performance (Gorard & Taylor, 2001). However, there is a need to explore obvious relationship between the outcomes of students and collaborative, democratic, and distributed leadership forms (Harris, 2004). The supervisors with an ideal leadership style significantly affect employees’ job satisfaction with respect to self- esteem, opportunities, expectations with job, self respect, fair dealing, and participation (McKee, 1991).
Being social institutions schools are linked closely with patterns of power in historical and social sense. As leadership is the combination of influence and power, the concept of school change studies may disturbed seriously if we neglect it. So its analysis is needed to be investigated with its allied concepts of legitimacy and authority (Fleisch & Christie, 2004). The leaders who are effective and committed,
10 motivate their teachers and learners, and retain professional academic environment in their institutions (Barker 2001; Fernandez 2000). Leadership effectiveness is assessed by employees’ commitment to leader, group cohesiveness, leader’s ability to advance, and subordinates’ development (Sweeney & McFarlin, 2002).
Forms of Leadership
In the literature two general forms of leadership are formal and informal. In formal form, a person is appointed to lead a group and officially bestows the power and authority to guide and direct others in the organization. It may be informal and materializes within the ranks of the group with the harmony of group members. It unofficially accords a person the power and influence to guide and direct their behaviors (Khanka, 2007; Moorhead & Griffin, 1995).
Features of Leadership
It is revealed from the literature that leadership is a personal quality and willingness of people to follow a person as leader. It exists only with followers. It is meaningless without adherents. Leadership involves readiness to accept complete responsibility in all situations. Leadership styles may change under different circumstances. Leaders stimulate the followers to strive willingly for attainment of organizational objectives. A leader must has the ability to sway the behavior, attitude, and belief of his/ her subordinates (Sahni, 2004). The success of a leader depends on the acceptance of his leadership by the followers (Khanka, 2007).
11
Functions of Leadership
A leader gives orders and instructions by formulating objectives for his group.
He maintains an office work, culture, discipline, and healthy communication in the organization. He takes important decisions, listens to subordinates, and responds to their needs. A leader is conscientious to inspire and motivate all members of his group and represent them to the outside world.
Sources of Leader Power
It is obvious that leadership is the appropriate use of power. Two common types of power are position and personal power. After defining power, the two types of powers are explained briefly.
The capacity to affect the behavior of people is called power (Bartol, Tein,
Matthews, & Martin, 2003). Sometimes power comes from person’s position in the organization, while other sources of power are based on personal cha racteristics. So leader’s power exists in the forms of position and personal (Daft, 2005).
Position Power
The traditional manager’s power in the organization granted him/ her authority to reward or punish subordinates in order to alter their attitude. It c omes from external sources. Legitimate, reward, and coercive power all are common types of position power.
Legitimate power. Power that stems from a formal management position in an
organization and the authority granted to it.
Reward power. Power that result from the authority to bestow rewards on
other people.
12
Coercive power. Power that stem from the authority to punish or
recommend punishment.
Personal Power
It is based on an internal source like special knowledge and personal traits. It exists in the form of expert and referent power.
Expert power. Power resulting from special knowledge or skill in the tasks
performed by subordinates.
Referent power. It belongs to personality characteristics that command
subordinates’ identification, respect, and admiration so they wish to emulate
the leader (Daft, 2005).
The basis of power have been subdivided into two more general categories refer to as strong and soft. Coercive and legitimate power falls in the strong category in which strict rules are obeyed through the threat of painful consequences. On the other hand, referent and reward power fall in the soft category in which others are essentially free to decide whether to accept the advice or counsel (Raven,
Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998). The two types of power are the distinction between autocratic and democratic leadership styles (Lippit & White, 1960).
Chronological Emergence of Leadership Studies
With the passage of time researchers have tried to study leadership with different aspects. On the basis of extensive study of leadership literature, here is a brief history of these studies.
Name of study Primary writers/ Researchers / Year
? IOWA studies Lewin, Lippitt, & White (1939).
? Leadership factors Stogdill (1948).
13
? Ohio State studies Halpin & Winer (1957).
? Theory X & Y McGregor (1957).
? Performance maintenance Misumi, Nakano, & Ueno (1958).
? Michigan studies Likert (1961).
? Four -factor theory Bowers & Seashore (1966).
? Contingency theories Fiedler (1967); (1960-70).
? Leadership grid styles Black & Mouton (1968).
? Situational leadership Hersey & Blanchard (1969).
? Path-goal theory Evans (1970).
? Leader -Member Exchange (1970).
? Substitutes for Leadership (1970).
? Decision Making Model Vroom & Yetton (1973).
? Servant Leadership Greenleaf (1977).
? Charismatic Leadership (1970 - 1980).
? Theory Z Ouchi (1981).
? Transformational leadership Bass & Avolio (1994); Burns (1978).
? Distributed Leadership Gronn (2003).
Perspectives of Leadership
Leadership literature can also be studied in its five perspectives (Kanungo,
1998; Yukl, 2001). They help us in understanding this complex issue (McShane &
Glinow, 2004). They are:
i. Competency perspective
ii. Behavioral perspective
iii. Contingency perspective
14
iv. Transformational perspective
v. Implicit leadership perspective
Prominent Studies on Leadership
As already mentioned the topic of leadership is very vast. In next few pages the most prominent studies about leadership styles are explained.
The IOWA Leadership Studies
The series of pioneer leadership studies that had a lasting impact were conducted in late 1930s by Lippitt and White under the direction of Kurt Lewin at
IOWA University. Lewin was recognized as the father of group dynamics and cognitive theorist. They identified three types of leadership named authoritarian, democratic, and laissez faire.The authoritarian leader did not allow participation. This leader gave individual attention when praised and criticized but tried to be friendly or impersonal rather than openly hostile. The democratic leader encouraged group discussion and decision making. He tried to be objective in his praise or criticism.
The laissez faire leader gave complete freedom to the group. He essentially provided no leadership. Under experimental conditions, the three leadership styles were manipulated to show their effects on satisfaction and frustration. Some results were clear while others were inconsistent. One definite finding was overall performance for the democratic leader. The experiments were designed primarily to examine pattern of aggressive behavior. The researchers found that the boys subjected to the autocratic leaders reacted in one of the two ways either aggressive or apathetically. The laissez faire leadership climate produced the greatest number of aggressive acts from the group. The democratically led group fell between the one extremely aggressive group and the four apathetic groups under the autocratic leaders.
15
The studies were valuable for analyzing leadership from the standpoint of scientific methodology and showed that different styles of leadership produced different complex reactions from the same groups (Sahni, 2004).
The Ohio State Leadership Studies
Researchers at Ohio State University in USA designed a questionnaire which was administered in both military and industrial setting to assess subordinates perceptions about their leaders’ actual behavior. They concluded that there were two broad dimensions of leadership, initiating structure and consideration. The first one was also known as task oriented behavior that implied set goals, defined and organized tasks, determined work relationships, and controlled behavior for workers.
Consideration was known as employee oriented behavior referred to friendship, trust, and support of leader toward machines and group. Such leaders believed in motivating subordinates rather controlling them.
Findings of Ohio state leadership studies. The Research on Ohio State
Leadership Studies revealed that absenteeism and grievance were significantly linked to consideration, but negatively correlated with performance. On the other hand, the performance of employees was optimistically associated to Initiating structure but had negative effects on absenteeism and grievances. When both dimensions were high, the satisfaction and performance of employees also enhanced. But in some cases, high productivity was accompanied by absenteeism and grievances.
16
Michigan Studies on Leadership Styles
When lea dership styles were the main emphasis of the researchers, in Michigan
University these styles were being studied also for the purpose of group effectiveness.
One of the most pioneer researchers Likert (1961) identified two major styles of leadership, employee orientation and production orientation. The employee orientation style dealt with the aspect of individual’s job. Such leader posed confidence on the subordinates. They felt free to discuss matters related to their jobs with the leader. In production orientation style leader had emphasized on technical aspects of job and production. Subordinates were treated as tools to accomplish the organizational goals. While relating these orientations to employees’ performance,
Likert found that employee oriented style resulted in higher performance compared to production oriented. However, he failed to find direct correlation between satisfaction and productivity of employees.
Evaluation of Michigan leadership studies. The Michigan studies were criticized because they failed to suggest whether leader behavior was a cause or effect. They did not clarify whether employee centered leadership made the group productive or whether the high productive group induced the leader to be employee centered. They also ignored the personal and group characteristics of subordinates’ tasks and situational variables. The behavioral styles suggested by Michigan studies had been termed as static. A leader was supposed to follow either of the two styles.
But in practice, a style may succeeds in one situation and fails in other. Moreover leaders don’t restrict themselves to a particular style. They adopted both orientations in varying degree to suit the particular situation.
17
Difference between Leadership and Management
Some people treat both terms as synonymous. However, leadership differs from management. Leadership involves influencing people towards the attainment of group goals while, “management involves planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling” group activities to accomplish organizational goals. In some, managers manage things while leaders lead people (Bennis, 1989). Bennis and Nanus
(1985) have differentiated leadership from management with the statement that,
“managers are people who do things right, and leaders are people who do the right things”. Management manages the ladder of success efficiently. The leadership role is to determine the tilting of ladder aligned with the right wall. Management depends on formal power of position to sway the subordinates, while leadership evolves from social influence (Zaleznik, 1992). Leadership involves neither force nor coercion. A manager who relies solely on force and formal authority to direct the behavior of subordinates is not exercising leadership (Conger, 1989).
Difference between Leadership Style and Behavior
After World War second, researchers turned their attention from leadership traits to leadership behaviors. They soon found distinctive patterns. Some leaders were task driven, focused on the technical challenges of reaching organizational goals. Others more concerned with the human dimensions of the job concentrated on motivation and communication.
Eventually these findings led to the notion of style. It was the characteristic way in which a leader uses power, makes decision, and interacts with others. Style quickly gained acceptance as an important element in leadership, partly because it provided an understandable explanation of every body’s experience (Smith & Piele,
18
2006). Kunwar (2001) cited the findings of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1967) about the concepts of leadership styles and leadership behaviors. Leadership style was an innate, relatively enduring attribute of our personality which provides us motivation and determines our general orientation when exercising leadership.
Leadership behavior on the other hand, referred to particular acts which one could perform or not perform if one has knowledge and skills.
Leadership Styles
The leadership style of a leader is the combination of behaviors as task and relationship oriented (Bruno & Lay, in press). Good leadership is about action, not position. Never confuse the two. If someone wants to become a good leader, he must stress on actions rather than talking. Always behave like a leader. People are interested in your actions rather skills.
The theories about leadership have direct implication for what the style leader uses in managing employees (Kunwar, 2001). The term style is almost comparable to the manner where the leader influences subordinates (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1996).
The ways in which leaders influence their subordinates are called styles of leadership.
There are three basic styles of leadership:
1. Autocratic or Authoritarian Style
2. Democratic or Participative Style
3. Laissez faire or Free rein Style (Khanka, 2007).
According to Kunwar (2001) two broad educational leadership styles are autocratic or authoritarian and democratic or participative.
19
Autocratic or Authoritarian Leadership Style
There are variations in autocratic or authoritarian style. They are self-centered and missionary authoritarians. There are overt and covert authoritarians. One thing common among all authoritarians, they always want to remain in the centre stage and love to wield power over subordinates. They like to keep control in their hands. Their vision is dictated by their own personal experience and reflections. Missionary authoritarian do not believe in dishonesty for their personal gains but they are myopic and consider themselves best in intentions, thought, and work. Some times they become unrealistic due to narrow personalized vision. They make their followers dependent in terms of ideas, functions, and progress. Self-centered authoritarians maintain a distance from followers to hide their professional weakness and wield power by virtue of their office. They are always in checking and inspection mode to find faults and weaknesses in their followers and create tension and division among them. Overt authoritarian are known as controlling authority and demonstrate it through explanations, warnings, and dismissals. They follow rules and regulations as per book and express their likes and dislikes openly. Humanism is a missing word in their dictionaries. But they are certainly better than covert authoritarians. They present themselves openly and they are, what they are. Covert authoritarians are more dangerous. They pose friendly understanding and concerned. They encourage discussion and consultation but manipulate it to their own advantage. They mix up to a certain extent and demonstrate an open door policy yet their ideas and motives are fixed, rigid, and highly personalized. They are excellent manipulators and excel in the art of communication (Kunwar, 2001). The leader compelled followers to obey his orders completely. The autocratic leadership style is apt for those followers who are inexperienced and incompetent. The leader wants to be active and dominant and
20 highly competent for making a right decision. However autocratic leadership style is subjected to several limitations as low morale and job dissatisfaction. Employees’ efficiency tends to decline over period. Potential manager-led employees do not get opportunity to exhibit their capabilities (Khanka, 2007).
Democratic or Participative Leadership Style
The other style is democratic. There are variations in this style too. Some democratic leaders believe in consultation and negotiation but like to keep the final decision by themselves. They provide an open forum for discussion, listen patiently, take notes and make changes in their opinions where necessary. Some democratic leaders believe in sharing and participatory approach. They see themselves as team leaders and are ready to let others lead in certain areas. Like constructivist leadership approach they allow others to act as leaders. They follow an open door policy in the real sense. They believe in shared vision and participatory decision making approach.
They are open to suggestions, innovations, and change. They do not believe in inspection and checking but in support and me ntoring (Kunwar, 2001). The leader makes decision after consultation with subordinates. The social and ego needs of employees become satisfied in participative decision making. They provide subordinates opportunity to increase their potential academic responsibilities, job satisfaction, and morale. Subordinates’ participation in decision making helps in making right decision because “two heads are better than one”. It is suitable for the situation where subordinates are competent and experienced.
Democratic leadership style is considered as best style in all circumstances.
Decision making in this style is time consuming. The dominant subordinates may manipulate decision in their favour. All group members are equally responsible for
21 implementing decisions. Sometimes the decisions taken become the distorted one because “many cooks spoil the broth” (Khanka, 2007).
Laissez Faire Leadership Style
It is the opposite of autocratic style. The leader feels free and the followers get pleasure to decide. This style is suitable when leader is able to fully delegate the powers of decision making to his/her subordinates. Subordinates are also well competent and knowledgeable. Organizational goals and objectives are well communicated to employees. This style has limitation also because it creates chaos and mismanagement in decision making (Khanka, 2007).
However it will be wrong to assume that leaders are strictly divided in black and white, they are mostly in grey areas. Situational leadership is generally the norm in most of the situations. A leader can be authoritarian, democratic, participatory, and manipulative in different situations. Educational leadership is different from corporate leadership. As the climate and culture is different. Even within educational contexts different styles might be more effective or otherwise. For example, a missionary authoritarian (benevolent autocrat) is more successful in new educational set up where most of the subordinates need to be trained. Democratic leadership is likely to be more s uccessful in a comparatively older and well organized educational set up.
Transactional leadership (closed democratic or open authoritarian) may be more suitable for an educational organization where maintaining status-quo is the main concern (Kunwar, 2001).
Women and Leadership
Gender has been one of the important research topics of all researchers in the studies of leadership styles through the world. The reason behind was, the increase of women in the workforce has generated much interest in understandin g the similarities
22 and differences between male and female leaders (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). A study conducted by Deji and Makinde (2006) illustrated that female leaders feel free to express their ideas with their employees as compared to male leaders. T here has been heated debate among researchers about differences in gender leadership styles. Some claimed that female leaders have innate traits and behaviors that are apt for relation- oriented leadership. They nurture their followers with cooperative styles. On the other hand, males prefer “command and control militaristic leadership style”. Rosener
(1990, 1995) has identified that both performed opposite patterns of leadership. Yet the style of women is most appropriate in modern organization.
Men and women were seen as displaying more task and social leadership respectively (Shelly & Munroe, 1999). Women used democratic or participative style and men used autocratic or directive leadership style (Eagly, Karau, & Johnson,
1992). Using data from actual performance evaluations, one study found that when rated by peers, subordinates, and bosses, woman managers score comparatively better than men in motivating, communication, and listening (Sharpe, 2000). Democratic head was an ideal head for both male and fema le teachers (Tasnim, 2006). Women have been able to vie with males even in male dominated professions like commerce, engineering, and medical (Al-Lamki, 1999; Hanslin, 2004; Okpara, 1996; Opeke,
2002). They have overcome misconceptions like not to participate in decision-making process. In the workplace settings, women’s management styles differed with men due to nurturing and caring (Women in Business, 1997). Women principals’ leadership style places a high value to attend the staff, pupils, and administrative issues (Hall, 1996; Lad 2000; Regan & Brooks, 1995). Cooper (1992) identified that men manage their employees by chastisement while women by incentives. Philips
(1995) has investigated that women treat their subordinates like family members. Men
23 and women were seen as displaying more task and social leadership respectively
(Shelly & Munroe, 1999).
Leaders make a difference and performance in organization. Their style of functioning determines the impact on their own and subordinates effectiveness. The leadership styles of men and women can be effective but different in their functioning. Meta-analysis of autocratic and democratic leadership styles on group productivity and membership satisfaction has inveterated the significance of restrained situation (Foels, Driskell, Mullen, & Salas, 2000; Gastil, 1994). Grogan
(2000) concluded that women in management were still being viewed as women first and administrators second. However, the assumption that democratic and participative style is specific or female leaders has not yet to be explored due to contradiction to cede power to women. While conducting a study in Nigeria, Deji and
Makinde (2006) identified a positive difference among genders to express their personal feelings.
Leadership in an International Context
It is an admitted fact that deficiency in devoted leadership prevails all over the world. Hence different countries have different leadership styles on the basis of their cultural associations. Every organization and institution likes to promote the satisfaction and effectiveness of its employees. Societal values and beliefs of a specific region and country play a significant role. The appropriateness and effectiveness of leadership style depend on the operating situation in which a leader matches his/ her leadership style with the task of their followers (Hersey, Blanchard,
& Johnson, 2001). Directive leadership behaviors have prevailed in Mexico and
Taiwan, while in South Korea and United States the dominant leading style is participative. Only participative leadership style has a direct and significant affiliation
24 with performance in United States. While in Mexico, a positive relationship with performance was investigated under directive and supportive leadership (Dickson,
Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003).
Leaders perform a vital role in decision making to influence and agree people about what and how their needs to be done effectively and towards the accomplishment of shared goals (Yukl, 2002). Situational variables are emphasized in
American participatory theories of leadership. In contrast, Japanese theories are hubbed on communication functions of leaders in organizations. However, in Taiwan authoritarian leadership style was the focal point (Wu, 2006). Redding and Wong
(1986) as well as Bond and Hwang (1986) explored that within Chinese companies the preferred leadership style is directive and authoritarian. An updated study conducted on Taiwan and the United States found that Taiwanese popular decision- making leadership style was participative as compared to autocratic style (Wu &
Stewart, 2003). Hofstede (2001) claimed that individualistic culture is highly dominant United States, while in Japan and Taiwan, collectivistic cultures nourish.
Due to inconsistent situational variables it is difficult to generalize the findings of participative leadership studies which influence the success of the style. This style is needed to examine from cultural viewpoint. By summing up, the priority of school leadership team is to keep teachers satisfied on their job (De Nobile & McCormick,
2005).
25
Research on Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles
Leaders are a part and parcel in the workplace and have a lasting effect while operating the organizations. Most of them are naive about leadership practices and their impact on employees’ satisfaction level (Elpers & Westhuis, 2008). When leaders deal with employees, they engage in the pattern of behaviors. Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) explored autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles.
Autocratic leadership style maintains a master-servant relationship with members of the group. In contrast, democratic style used of consultative approach and maintain a master-master relationship with group members. The laissez-faire leadership style allows complete freedom to all workers. It is obvious that in all managerial situations, single best leadership style is difficult to decide (Mullins, 1999; Omolayo, 2004;
Vecchio, 2002). Mixed leadership styles are more successful in many situations as compared to single leadership style (Keedy, 1993). While discussing on leadership styles, Bass (1990) concluded that autocratic cluster includes authoritarian, directive, and coercive styles, whereas the democratic cluster includes democratic, participative, and consultative. Likert (1967) has claimed that superior style in all situations is participative (democratic).
The direct successful performance and effectiveness is jointly credited to team and leadership process (Morgeson, 2005; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002; Zaccaro,
Ardison, & Orvis, 2004). Employees showed greater job satisfaction, feel respected, independent, and express themselves freely while working under participative leaders
(Kahai, et al., 1997). The leaders create an environment in which workers are inspired, motivated, and feel accomplished (Bass, 1997).
According to Smith (1998) if the employees and leader relationship is positive, the task will be highly structured and employees show high effectiveness. The
26 democratic leaders involve group members in discussion and motivate their team.
Schwartz (1987) found that the workers under democratic organizations feel high acquiescent and showed annoyance and antagonism under autocratic organizations.
They once in a blue moon partake in the decision making (Hayers, 2000). The evidence shows that principals adopt autocratic leadership approaches at critical situations (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Organizational characteristics and teacher’s performance have affected directly by Principal’s leadership. It affects student’s performance (Cheng, 2002). Principals of public sector schools have democratic leadership styles while those of private sector have autocratic leadership styles. The performance of autocratic leaders dominated over democratic leaders
(Iqbal, 2005; Mahmood, 1995).
The productivity, satisfaction, involvement, and commitment of followers are attributed to democratic leadership style (Hackman & Johnson, 1996). The participative leadership style is dominated over directive leadership style in the long run effectiveness of organization (Bryk, Easton, Kerbow, Rollow, & Sebring, 1993;
Hargreaves, 1994). Subordinates showed greater satisfaction under democratic style of leadership (Bass, 1990). The momentous hitch to democratic style of leadership is lengthy and time consuming process. However the leadership productivity is increased by participatory supervision (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003).
The control and participation are the key characteristics of both styles.
Participation is a heart of democratic style, while a top-down style and directive control are the main characteristics of autocratic style (Luthar, 1996). Participative or democratic leadership style is a joint decision making process (Koopman &
Wierdsma, 1998). Directive or autocratic leade rship provide only leader’s vision
(Fiedler, 1995; Sagie, et al., 2002).
27
Principals’ leadership capacities in urban settings are significantly higher than in sub-urban and in rural settings. Schools in urban settings have advantages in terms of funding, cultural and physical environment, teacher and student quality, and community support systems. Principals in urban settings enjoy better professional development opportunities, higher salaries and comfortable living status than their sub-urban and rural counterparts (Hannum, 2003; Luo, 2004). According to Evans
(1998) head teachers with a consultative and collaborative leadership styles were more successful in achieving greater job satisfaction and morale from teaching staff.
Bass (1990) concluded that leadership practices fall on a continuum from purely autocratic to purely democratic. Directive style of leadership is suitable in the situation in which the leader is more competent than followers. If the followers are more competent and knowledgeable, then participative style of leadership is favourite
(Murphy & Fiedler, 1992; Peterson, 1997; Somech & Wenderow, 2006). In the past, the success of a school was dependent on very strong, clear-cited, and decisive leadership (Morris, 2000). The head teacher is expected to be the prime agent articulating, embodying, and implementing the schools mission and ethos (Sullivan,
1999). The selection of autocratic and democratic leadership styles is provoked by the reality that these leadership styles influence subordinate’s satisfaction as well as performance.
28
Job Satisfaction
Definitions of Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as, “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from an appraisal of ones job or job experiences” (Akhtar, 2000; Arches,
1991; Butler, 1990).
Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) defined job satisfaction as, “a combination of cognitive and affective reactions to the differential perceptions of what an employee wants to receive compared with what he or she actually receives”.
Teachers’ job satisfaction refers to, “ teacher’s affective relation to his or her teaching role and is a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from teaching and what one perceives it is offering to a teacher” (Zembylas &
Papanastasiou, 2004). Significance of Job Satisfaction
Work plays a prominent role in our lives. It occupies more time as compared to other tasks and forms the sound basis of our economical lifestyle. Many specialists have studied this interesting concept to investigate the perception and attitude towards it (Koustelios, 2001). The job satisfaction as well as performance is affected by positive match between the job requirements and individual abilities. When employees are able to fulfill their requirements, they perform their jobs well and remain happy as their skills and abilities are matched (Brkich, Jeffs, & Carless, 2002;
Singh & Greenhaus, 2004). Motivation leads to good performance and performance leads to job satisfaction. Mind satisfaction is the birth right of workers des pite of race, cast, religion, and location of worksite.
29
The performance of satisfied workers remains high as compared to less satisfied because it is an enviable aspiration of organizations (Chambers, 1999).
Research focusing specifically on the principals’ job satisfaction in secondary schools identified several sources of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. High school principals expressed satisfaction in the areas of variability of tasks, amount of recognition, development of personal relations, hiring of new staff, instituting program changes, and working with students. Major sources of dissatisfaction were sacrifices in personal life, difficulties with existing policies, lack of achievement and opportunities for growth, limited autonomy, problems with higher authorities, and central office personnel (Merrill & Pounder, 1999). However, these studies did not differentiate between female and male high school principals in describing the sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
According to Zigarreli (1996) the job satisfaction of teachers is a noteworthy predictor in effective schools. Hall, Pearson, and Carroll (1992) identified that less satisfied teachers and negative perception towards teaching intended to leave the profession. It was also allied with administrative performance, quality of teachers, organizational commitment and performance, academic achievement, behavior of students, and turnover (Mathieu, 1991; Ostroff, 1992). The impact of organizational and demographic variables on commitment is closely linked with the dual role of job satisfaction (Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994; Price, 1997).
Factors of Job Satisfaction
The factors of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction have been investigated by many researchers (Farber, 1991; Friedman & Farber, 1992; Shann, 1998; Spear,
Gould, & Lee, 2000; Thompson, McNamara, & Hoyle, 1997). Both factors affect the job satisfaction of teachers in all administrative jobs (Papanastasiou & Zembylas,
30
2005). The intrinsic factors are associated with job itself and extrinsic factors related to work environment where it is performed (Bogler, 2001; Dinham & Scott, 2000).
According to Garcia-Bernal, Gargallo-Castel, Marzo-Navarro, and Rivera -Torres
(2005) the economic aspects, working relations and conditions, and individual fulfillment all determined job satisfaction level. Reiner and Zhao (1999) analyzed the job satisfaction into individual characteristics and job position. Intrinsic factors inspire people to choose teaching while extrinsic conditions instigate them to stay in the profession (Perie, et al., 1997). Following are the important factors revealed in literature. The factors affecting the job satisfaction can be broadly categorized as environmental, psychological, and demographic. They were the main focus of numerous studies conducted in UK over the years (Halpin, 2001; Ma & McMillan,
1999; Oshagbemi, 1998; Scot & Dinham, 2003; Spector, 1997).
Interpersonal Factors
Interpersonal relationships are the key elements in the study of job satisfaction which make social and support network for employees. They include supervisory relationship and social interaction with co-workers. The co-workers’ social support has been studied for decades due to its significance. Research has shown that workers who have friends and related to social group were more satisfied (Green, 2000). On the other hand, less satisfied employees lack social support and bore more stress
(Maynard, 1986).
Intrinsic factors
About one third of our life is being spent while working. It is the source of identity and existence (Bruce & Blackburn, 1992). The intrinsic factors have their own significance regardless of attractive salary, safety, and fringe benefits. Intrinsic rewards are more valuable than monetary incentives (Martinez-Ponz, 1990). Stewart
31
(2000) stated that independent workers feel more satisfaction and perform well.
Intrinsic satisfaction emerges from classroom activities, personal relationships with students, intellectual challenge of teaching, autonomy, and independence
(Papanastasiou & Papanastasiou, 1998; Shann, 1998).
External rewards like pay, incentives, and status also attract few people towards the profession (Dinham & Scott, 1998, 2000). A study on job satisfaction conducted in America (NCES, 1997) revealed that mana gerial support, school environment, and teacher sovereignty were strongly linked with teacher satisfaction.
The issue of teachers’ turnover was closely associated with school management, student inspiration, and disciplinary problems (Whitener, et al., 1997). One study found that teaching for intrinsic reasons make the teachers more satisfied (Zembylas
& Papanastasiou, 2004, 2006).
Extrinsic Factors
Extrinsic factors associated with salary, support from administrator, work load, extra curricular assignments , and perception of society about teachers (Shen,
1997; Thompson, et al., 1997). Now a days workers consider extrinsic factors like better pay, prestigious life style, and job security (Andrews, Faubion, & Palmer, 2002;
Jennings, 2000).
Research conducted by Houston, Meyer, and Paewai (2006) resulted that university academics were dissatisfied with extrinsic rewards and relatively more satisfied with intrinsic aspects. Blandford and Grundy (2000) have pointed out that burnout and job satisfaction were negatively correlated with poor working conditions, relationships among staff, poor administration and status, teachers’ relationships with parents and students, and criticism from society. The causes of teachers low job satisfaction are organizational change (Dinham & Scot, 2000); over workload,
32 increasing bureaucracy, and poor discipline (Moriarty, Edmond, Blatchford, &
Martin, 2001; Personnel Today, 2003; Silliote, 2003); styles of leadership and management (Schultz & Teddlie,1999); job related stress (Evans, 1998); lower value placed on teaching as a profession (Evans, 1997; Halpin, 2001); increasing class sizes
(MacLean, 1992); possible conflict between work and family life (Spear, et al. 2000); excessive media criticism on teachers working in failing schools (National Union of
Teachers [NUT], 2001; Scot & Dinham, 2003); as well as pay (Chung, Dolton, &
Tremayne, 2004).
Theories of Job Satisfaction
Being a popular aspect of life, almost in every discipline job satisfaction is examined. There are numerous theories in which job satisfaction has been investigated and explored by many researchers and scholars. They have studied them under three main paradigms that are most famous in the literature. The first one that met by the job is the need for development and self-actualization. It is known as content theory. The second one is about the personal expectations and values that are needed to meet for individuals. It is referred as process theory. The last one is about the situational theories in which the organiza tional characteristics are matched with the wellbeing of an individual’s own uniqueness to interact or mesh (Worrell, 2004).
The prominent theories which laid the foundation of job satisfaction are as under:
33
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
Maslow’s theory is based on two assumptions; people always want more and prioritized their requirements in order of significance (Smith & Cronje, 1992). While studying Maslow’s theory, Schultz, Bagraim, Potgieter, Viedge, and Werner (2003) and Smith and Cronje (1992) summarized these needs as:
Physiological needs. These are the basic need known as the biological needs such as the need for water, food, rest, exercise, and sex. Once these needs are fulfilled they have no longer influenced the behavior.
Safety needs. They include the need for security, insurance, medical aid, and protection against physical and emotional harm.
Social needs. People wished for love, friendship, acceptance, and understanding from other people.
Ego and esteem needs. The fourth level of needs is the need for self-respect, recognition by others, confidence, and achievement.
Self -actualization needs. This is the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and leads to the full development of a person's potential. On this level a person become self actualized and utilize all talents well and become creative.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
The most widely utilized theory in educational setting is Herzberg’s two-factor theory presented by Herzberg with his co researchers (Derlin & Schneider, 1994;
Dinham & Scott, 1998, 2000; Mercer, 1993; Scott, Cox, & Dinham, 1999). Herzberg
(1966) has conducted his studies in different situations. He identified job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction as split constructs (De Nobile & McCormick, 2005). He pr oposed in his theory of Motivation-Hygiene that job and job environment lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction due to certain elements. This theory explained that
34 satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors were different to each other. They made employees good or bad about their work. Satisfied employees attributed internal factors for satisfaction and external factors for dissatisfaction. Motivators are the factors that contribute to satisfaction, while job dissatisfaction factors are called hygiene. They are renamed as intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) factors
(Schulz, et al., 2003). The level of performance is prompted by motivational factors that are listed as satisfiers. The word hygiene is borrowed from medical that averts our performance and are known as dissatisfiers. The job content or intrinsic components lead to workers’ satisfaction and job environment or extrinsic components create dissatisfaction.
Herzberg has identified the work, success, appreciation, liability, and opportunity for development as satisfiers. He listed the rules, management, pay, mutual relations, and working conditions as dissatisfiers. Although his studies were conducted in industrial setting yet evidences exist in education.
His studies took major criticisms as una ble to support the findings due to inadequate empirical data. He believed that employees have same nature, and really they were the theories of satisfaction rather than motivation (Hansom, 1996). In spite of major criticisms, Herzberg and his associates contributed significantly in under standing the concept of job satisfaction.
Alderfer’s ERG Theory
Alderfer’s theory is referred to as ERG theory and is based on, “existence, relatedness, and growth needs”. Existence is the basic requirement of individuals like safety and physiological needs. Relatedness is about positive interpersonal relations equivalent to Maslow’s social and esteem needs. Growth is the internal desire for individual development same as Maslow’s self-actualization (Bull, 2005).
35
McClelland ’s Theory of Needs
This theory focuses on the need for achievement, power, and affiliation. Need for achievement is a drive to maintain standards for successful. Need for power is to let others behave in such a way that they do not behave otherwise. Need for affiliation is to behave friendly (Luthans, 1998).
Measurement of Job Satisfaction
Many researchers have identified job satisfaction as a global notion which has different aspects (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). The job satisfaction is measured by interviews and observation on workplace. In developing countries very few studies were conducted to explore the sources and impact of teachers’ job satisfaction (Garrett, 1999; Hean & Garrett, 2001). Many researchers have used an in- depth survey instrument (Spector, 1997). Questionnaires are preferable, less biased, confidential, easily distributed, and saved time and money as compared to conducting interviews (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). They are able to examine the hypothesized facets. As there is no common agreement with theory and definition, this contradiction leads to weight and interpret the results differently. The widely used survey instruments are, “The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), the Job Descriptive Index
(JDI), and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)”. In addition researchers have also designed their own instruments according to the situations and dimensions they intend to measure. Cultural values make it difficult to compare job satisfaction across countries (Spector, 2001).
36
Dimensions of Job Satisfaction
Several dimensions have been identified relevant to this study are given here.
Salary
A fundamental variable in the study of job satisfaction is salary (Derlin &
Schnieder, 1994). According to Luthans (1998) salaries have an important role to fulfill basic needs of workers and satisfied higher order needs. Job satisfaction is significantly effected by financial benefits. In a socialized society in which money and security are the sole criterions used to gauge the worth of people. The better monetary rewards make employees less worry about their pecuniary status. They also enhance their self-worth in the organization (Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Lubbock,
2001). The teachers leave the profession due to poor salary and become dissatisfied in urban, public, and private schools (Ingersoll, 2001; Perie, Baker, & Whitener, 1997).
The correlation between job satisfaction and salary was more prominent in the studies conducted during the last 80 years. The key factor between salary and job satisfaction was social comparison. When the compensation of work performed by the employees is too large or small, their expectations changed (Worrell, 2004). Employees were less satisfied with salary in the sectors of health and education (Gazioglu & Ta nsel, 2006).
Job satisfaction and pay has positive relationship in current studies (Diaz-Serrano &
Cabral Vieira, 2005; Lucas, Babakus, & Ingram, 1990). The teachers do part time jobs to make ends meet even outside their profession due to fiscal constraint because they were less satisfied with their pay (Hean & Garrett, 2001). Further, it is more difficult to handle the students of poorer academic backgrounds who have fewer expectations of being able to reach higher education. The teachers in public sector are paid less and employees in private industries comparatively earn more that is why they are
37 dissatisfied with their occupation. (Murnane, Singer, Willet, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991;
Stinebrickner, 1998). Klassen and Anderson (2009) showed that Job satisfaction level of secondary school teachers in 2007 was lower than it was in the past. Males rated salary while females rated larger class size as their top job dissatisfaction sources.
Promotion
Promotion and advancement is a basic incentive for human beings. Promotion policy, suitability of the desired post, and responsibilities are the main predictors of satisfaction. As promotion demands a greater responsibility and complex tasks, employees wish to be promoted only if they feel that promotion policy is fair otherwise they prefer to work at the same post. Promotion was directly related to social status, increased responsibility, personal growth, and opportunities for promotion (Robbins, 2003; Tolbert & Moen, 1998). The teachers who changed school frequently and did not enjoy promotion are less satisfied as compared to teachers who have received promotion and never moved (Miller & Travers, 2005; Robertson,
Smith, & Cooper, 1992).
Supervision
The nature of supervision has positively related to job satisfaction. Better relationships with supervisor leads to job satisfaction. They include productive feedback, efficient communication, and significance of quality rather than quantity
(Bruce & Blackburn, 1992; Schroffel, 1999). Schroffel (1999) further stated that competent supervisors treat their employees with respect and fulfill their functional and interpersonal needs. More experienced employees’ desire less supervision and less experienced employees prefer more supervision. Supervisors who encourage their employees’ participation in decisions maintain higher levels of satisfaction (Chieffo,
38
1991). Rettig (2000) has investigated that supervisory practices foster employees in motivation, stimulation, and teaching performance. Supervision, pay, promotion opportunities, relation with co-workers, and class room practices are significantly related to job satisfaction (Khanka, 2007; Ninomiya & Okato, 1990; Robbins, 2003;
Sim, 1990).
Work
The work plays a significant role in enhancing job satisfaction level
(Moorhead & Griffen, 1992). The employees prefer those jobs that facilitate their skills and abilities independently to satisfy their performance. The employees experienced pleasure and satisfaction under moderate conditions (Robbins, 1998).
According to Blandford (2000) the satisfaction at work is enhanced by helping followers and promoting the growth of students. It has important suggestion for head teachers’ and teachers’ behaviors at work. The most frequent sources of satisfaction are teaching students, interaction wit h colleagues, better classroom discipline, greater opportunity for developing young lives, and universal gratification of teaching, despite the consequences of country context (Hean & Garrett, 2001).
Work Group or Colleagues
Co-workers or colleagues are a part and parcel for employees at work. The degree of job satisfaction is related to employees’ opportunities for interaction with others on the job. The job satisfaction level of individuals belongs to a function of personal and group characteristics (Mowdy & Sutton, 1993). The societal aspect of work has an important affect on attitude and behavior of workers (Marks, 1994).
Better interaction both with supervisors and co-workers increase the level of job satisfaction positively (Lee & Gao, 2005; Park & Deitz, 2006; Wharton & Baron,
39
1991). University employees show higher satisfaction by working with students and peers (Schroder, 2008). On a sample of primary school teachers, Menon and Christou
(2002) identified principals’ and teachers relationship as a momentous source of job satisfaction. Recognition, support, and respect from colleagues and superiors cultivate a feeling of job satisfaction (Dinham & Scot, 1998; Evans, 1998; Voluntary Services
Organization, 2000).
Working Conditions
Moorhead and Griffen (1992) identified working conditions as an important feature that impact employees’ job satisfaction. People feel comfortable while working in clean and gracious environment otherwise it is difficult to accomplish tasks (Luthans, 1998). The prominent reasons to quit the profession are workload, transfers, working environment, and discipline problems among learners (Bishay,
1996). Working conditions in backward schools are unfavorable towards learning and teaching (Mwamwenda, 1995; Ngidi & Sibaya, 2002; Steyn & van Wyk, 1999). In
Pakistan inadequate working and living conditions create a pitiable situation for teachers. Lack of transport availability, security threats, and residential amenities in remote rural areas are big issues. Female teachers are specially a victim of such circumstances. The ratio of students and teachers in secondary schools affects quality of teaching (Khan, 2004). A study conducted in USA revealed that most satisfied teachers like to work in safe, supportive, and autonomous environment (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1997). Job security is a prominent issue.
Employees with secure jobs revealed higher level of job satisfaction (Blanchflower &
Oswald, 1999; Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006). Especially females teacher prefer to work under secure and safe environment (Aguilar & Vlosky, 2008). The reason behind might be that in the past working conditions for women were very worse. School
40 climate and involvement in curriculum reform improves teachers’ autonomous development and decreases burnout. These factors positively influence teachers’ job satisfaction and professional commitment (Jiang, 2005). In United States teachers are less satisfied with remuneration and working conditions. Due to bad working conditions, teachers are unable to prepare their lessons effectively (Liu & Ramsey, in press). The autonomy of teacher, managerial support, and the involvement of teachers in the governance of school have improved the morale and career commitment of teachers (Ingersoll, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Weiss, 1999). A study conducted by Zembylas & Papanastasiou (2006) in Cyprus revealed teachers’ satisfaction as students’ interaction, colleagues relationships, and contribution towards society. They also identified dissatisfaction as impa ct of social problems on performance, lack of interest, bad behavior, professional autonomy, teacher evaluation, and promotion. Perie, Baker, and Whitener (1997) identified positive relationship of workplace conditions on job satisfaction of teachers.
Personal Determinants of Job Satisfaction
Personal feelings and interests have significant impact of job satisfaction. While studying, Worrel (2004) investigated the relationship of job satisfaction with demographic variables (gender, age), intrinsic factors (responsibility, advancement, and recognition), and extrinsic factors like (working conditions, supervision, and salary).
Gender and Job Satisfaction
Gender has been the part and parcel of job satisfaction studies conducted over the years. However their relationship is inconsistent. Some researches found female employees and teachers express higher level of job satisfaction as compared to male colleagues (Chaplain, 1995; Clark, 1997; Clecker & Loadman, 1999; Cox & Blake,
41
1991; Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Lambert, et al., 2001; Ma &
MacMillan, 1999; Poppleton & Riseborough, 1991; Sousa-Poza & Sousa- Poza, 2003;
Tasnim, 2006; Watson, Hatton, Squires, & Soliman, 1991), some studies found males are more satisfied due to better chances for employment and opportunities to advancement (Al-Mashaan, 2003; Chiu 1998; Sousa-Poza & Sousa -Poza 2000;
Wingard & Patitu, 1993), while other researches found no considerable divergence between the genders (Auster 2001; Iiacqua & Schumacher, 1995; Kim 2005;
Mortimer, Finch, & Maruyama, 1988; Thompson & McNamara, 1997). Some studies suggested that men and women exhibit similar level of satisfaction (Clark, Oswald, &
Warr, 1996). Male teachers attach more importance to career than females hence they are less satisfied (Kremer-Hayton & Goldstein, 1990). Female teachers teaching in primary schools are more satisfied than middle school teachers in private institutions.
Women have lower expectations and easily satisfied at work (Witt & Nye, 1992).
They choose teaching due to sinuous schedule to save more time for their families
(Murnane, et al., 1991). In a study conducted by Oplatka & Mimon (2007) female principals interpret job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in a quite different way.
Women in isolated workplaces reported higher level of job satisfaction because those workplaces provide them job flexibility (Bender, Donohue, & Heywood, 2005). In brief age and gender were the prominent predictors of burnout and job satisfaction
(Poulin & walter, 1993).
42
Rural and Urban Work Site
Researches have shown higher level of job satisfaction among urban and suburban teachers (Ruhl- Smith, 1991) when compared with rural settings (Arnold,
Seekins, & Nelson, 1997; Finley, 1991; Haughey & Murphy, 1984). The dominant features for workers in urban areas are better opportunities, developed schools, available transport, higher salaries, prestige, and superior opportunities for spousal adjustment. In contrast, rural settings are mostly family-oriented, less crimes, free recreation, and improved quality of life. The major drawbacks in rural setting are professional seclusion and lack of professional growth. However, with the advancement in modern technologies the concept of isolation has been relinquished to a great extent (Worrell, 2004). Teachers of urban schools found more responsible and sincere to their job and remain satisfied than the rural teachers due to infrastructure
(Tasnim, 2006). The research also revealed that rural teachers who get less salary are relatively more satisfied than urban school teachers due to less competitive society
(Saeed, 1997).
The Role of Teacher
Teaching in today’s schools can be rewarding, but it can also fill with hassle, annoyance, surplus, and petite time to manage oneself (White, 2000). The effectiveness of teacher is a burning issue in modern educational reforms towards improvement in schools. It is an acknowledged fact that teacher is the heart and soul for school success (Cooper & Conley, 1991).
Teachers’ low job satisfaction is a world wide phenomenon (Crossman &
Harris, 2006). Due to various precincts the performance of teacher is restricted. The confidence of teacher is affected by the poor quality of pre service training where
43 they were lacked in subject matter proficiency. They have failed to restore their status from the society and communities. They are a victim of low status job as compared to other professions. Their status, especially for male teachers, has been suffered so relentlessly that educated unwaged young opt for teaching only as a last resort and quit the profession as early as possible (Khan, 2004). The principals of female and male high schools are equally satisfied with their positions. More years of service enhance their satisfaction towards the profession. They agreed that a great source of satisfaction is their students (Eckman, 2004). T eachers perceive their profession a sound for the feelings of personal development (Dinham & Scott, 1998).
The Role of Student
The major factor influencing teachers' satisfaction is the student (Lee &
Dedrick, 1991). Teachers being a professional, improve the performance of classroom, develop students' discipline, and strengthen the needs of students (Blase,
1993). Personal satisfaction or recognition from others leads to greater job satis faction (Thompson, Thompson, & Orr, 2003). Most teachers feel it pleasure while working with young learners (Shen, 1997). The teachers who choose teaching for external incentives like status, salary, and benefits are very few (Dinham & Scot,
2000). Workload, pressure, and misbehavior of students are the main sources of stress as reported by many teachers (Griffith, Steptoe, & Cropley, 1999; Travers & Cooper,
1996; Yoon, 2002).
The School Size and Environment
School size is positively associated with teacher satisfaction because in larger schools the proportion of satisfied teachers tends be higher (Ingersoll, 2001; Lee &
Dedrick, 1991). Better schooling environment has optimistic impact on motivation of
44 teachers. Studies conducted in United States revealed that the teachers of private schools showed higher morale and job satisfaction levels as compared to public school teachers (Alt & Peter, 2002; Henke, Chen, Geis, & Knepper, 2000; Perie,
Baker, & Whitener, 1997). Due to rapid enrollment of underprivileged students in public schools the turnover of teachers was found to be high than private schools with relatively prosperous students. The teachers are assigned extra workload while staff shortage (Ingersoll, 2001). Poor working conditions make teachers ready to quit the profession (Macdonald, 1999; Travers & Cooper, 1996; Tye & O’Brien, 2002). The students as well as teachers both suffer extremely awful school atmosphere. The youngsters are dispirited to education due to lack of sound security, housing facilities, conveyance, and secluded rural areas (Khan, 2004). The environment has a momentous impact on job satisfaction (Moriarty, Edmonds, Blatchford, & Martin
2001). The relevance behind is often justified as better environment leads to productive workplace conditions by making workers happier (Newsham, et al. 2009).
Collaboration and communication between teachers and managers increased the level of job satisfaction when solving problems mutually (Protheroe, Lewis, & Paik, 2002).
Erpelding (1999) and Hirase (2000) identified that students’ academic achievement is positively linked to positive schooling climate.
Policy
Recruitment, postings, transfers, and promotions are key motivational factors.
Almost in all sectors, seniority is considered as sound base for promotion instead of performance. The achievement of teachers is often ignored that disenchanted the teachers in public schools towards effective teaching. The teachers perceived that non-translucent appointments and transfers are key issues in job dissatisfaction. In
Pakistan primary school teachers are often ignored in career development programs
45
(Khan, 2004). University employees were less satisfied with salaries, organizational policy, and administration (Schroder, 2008).
Teacher Absenteeism
Teacher absenteeism is world wide phenomenon which indicates that they are dissatisfied with their profession. Higher absenteeism (Spector, 1997; Wilson, DeJoy,
Vandenberg, Richardson, & McGrath, 2004) and turnover significantly correlated with lower job satisfaction. Female teachers showed less absenteeism than males.
According to school heads, teachers’ absenteeism is a serious problem in public schools than in private schools. It has negative effects on students’ academic achievement especially among girls’ students being a quick responsive (King,
Orazem, & Paterno, 1999). It is an enviable outcome both for employees and organizational viewpoint (Dow & Taylor, 1985), and turnover (Roper Starch
Worldwide, 2001; Tett & Meyer, 1993).
Job Satisfaction and Educational Level
Education has no significant affect on job satisfaction of employees (Iiacqua
& Schumacher, 1995; Lambert, et al., 2001; Ting, 1997). Recent studies have revealed that educational level and job satisfaction are associated positively if the qualifications and work of individuals coordinated exactly (Battu, Belfield, & Sloane,
1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Niehoff, 1995; Schroder, 2008). High qualified workers prefer to perform those jobs that are consistent with their education and become more satisfied (Bull, 2005). Pay satisfaction and academic performance are interlinked (Currall, Towler, Judge, & Kohn, 2005). The workers with doctoral degree exhibited higher satisfaction with their jobs (Blank, 1993; Brown, 2005).
46
Job Satisfaction and Professional level
Profession is a primary source of need satisfaction. The psychological well- being is promoted in satisfied workers and boost up their performance and functioning while working in the organizations (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000;
Ryan, 1995). The most traumatic career in UK is teaching (Rose, 2000). As far as gender is concerned, Khan (2004) found that academic qualification of teachers has momentous brunt on the test performance of female students than boys both in urban and rural setting. High qualified teachers depict higher level of satisfaction than low qualified teachers that lead to renounce (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Schlechty &
Vance, 1983). This finding may be in part attributable to the fact that teachers with better qualific ations perceive more alternative opportunities.
Two research paradigms develop the teachers’ professional status. They are teacher education programs and incentives of teaching profession (Shen & Hsieh,
1999). The workers who enjoyed professional training opportunities were more satisfied than those who did not (Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006). Nash (2000) identified that most of the teachers were a victim of melancholy, fretfulness, and stress in schools. A survey of job satisfaction by Gardner and Oswald (1999) indicated that teachers were less satisfied than any other professional group. The number of vacant teaching positions in UK has increased significantly during recent years (Evans, 1998) because teachers intended to leave the profession (Personnel Today, 2003; Voluntary
Services Organization, 2000).
Rank and Job Satisfaction
Men and women at more senior levels in organizations reported higher job satisfaction level with respect to managerial, clerical, and secretarial personnel
47
(Burke, 1996). Prestige of occupation has positive relationship with job satisfaction
(Smith, 2007). There is a significant correlation between job satisfaction and rank.
The top jobs are facilitated with improved working conditions, promotion, salary, management, sovereignty, and liability (Robie, Ryan, Schmieder, Parra, & Smith
1998). American principals were more satisfied with their colleagues, current job, and liability and less satisfied with their promotion, salary, and fringe benefits (Graham &
Messner, 1998). Teachers of science subjects are comparatively less rewarded and they prefer to join private sector where their skills are valued while in schools pay based on domain of expertise is not differentiated (Murnane, et al., 1991). Hulpia &
Devos (2009) found that school heads were more satisfied with their jobs.
Age and Job Satisfaction
Age and job satisfaction have positive relationship with each other (Chambers,
1999; Cramer, 1993; Robbins, 2001; Schroder, 2008; Siu, Spector, Cooper, & Donald,
2001; Staw, 1995; Tolbert & Moen, 1998). Job satisfaction increases with age and work experiences (Blood, Ridenour, Thomas, Qualls, & Hammer, 2002; Brown,
2005). Young teachers and workers quit the job easily than older ones because they showed less satisfaction with their jobs (Begley & Czajka, 1993; Hodson, 1996;
Ingersoll, 2001; Murnane, 1987; Perie, et al., 1997; Spector, 1997). Due to dissatisfaction new teachers leave the teaching profession within few years (Murnane, et al., 1991). Older employees were found to be more comfortable and tolerant as they have lowered expectations with their jobs (Spector, 1997). Literature revealed that older employees were happier with their jobs, have lower turnover rates and miss fewer working days (Kasl, 1997; Naceur & Fook, 2001). The level of satisfaction with age is positively correlated, excluding the teachers of ages between 40 and 50. Many
48 researchers reported that age and satisfaction have U-shaped relationship (Clark,
1996; Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006).
Job Satisfaction and Tenure
The span of time employees spent while working. Researches indicated that employees with longer tenure showed greater satisfaction towards their work than shorter tenure (Jinnett & Alexander, 1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Staw,
1995). According to Lambert, et al. (2001) and Ma and MacMillan (1999) the relationship between job satisfaction and tenure is opposite. This might be due to inconsistent literature or speedy family requirements compared to low increase in salaries.
When the perceptions of individuals about work environment are not fulfilled they become satisfied. It is more obvious in pre-service teachers who have optimistic expectations during their training about school environment (Menon & Christou,
2002). Pre-service teachers perceive teaching as an easy job, which led to frustration after entering into profession (Labaree, 2000). Brown (2005) investigated a positive relationship between tenure and extrinsic job satisfaction.
Experience and Job Satisfaction
More experienced teachers express less satisfaction with teaching profession than less experienced teachers (Sari, 2004). Professional development of teachers enhanced job satisfaction. Experienced teachers showed greater satisfaction while dealing with students than novice teachers. Teachers with greater experience have higher level of job satisfaction and they are confident in dealing with parents and students (Akhtar, 2000). Senior teachers enjoyed more facilities and resources on the basis of their experiences. Years of teaching and job satisfaction have positive relationship and newer teachers may retain due to this reason. The job satisfaction of
49 teachers is related to their professional status means stayers, movers, and leavers.
Stayer teachers are happier with administration, interaction of students, and professional growth as compared to leavers (Liu & Ramsey, in press).
Public versus Private Sector
Private education is financed by governing authorities or personal owners while public education is run by government support (Stavrides, 2000). Many studies have been conducted on private and public schools to explore the relationship between academic achievement, effectiveness, equity, accountability, and level of satisfaction (Bracey, 2002; Lockheed & Jimenez, 1996).
The comparison between both sectors has shown that private school teachers were more satisfied with their teaching jobs than teachers in public schools (Alt &
Peter, 2002; Henke, et al., 2000; Perie, et al., 1997; Sonmezer & Eryaman 2008)).
One research indicated that teachers in public school were more satisfied than teachers in private schools in terms of job security factors, public school teachers showed higher level of job satisfaction than teachers in private institutions (Mehrotra,
2005).
Job Satisfaction in an International Context
Job satisfaction among Albanian teachers is significantly related to social support and professional autonomy (kloap & Tarifa, 1994). Singapore teachers are most satisfied with teaching job; the Americans and Pakistani teachers rank at second and third to highest respectively; Japanese rank at the lowest; while Albanian,
German and the English are placed somewhere in the middle (Poppleton,1990).
Pakistan and Albanian teachers enjoy well with teaching as an occupation. The
German and Japanese teachers rank at the lowest (Saeed, 1997). Singapore teachers
50 rank at the top in using teaching-learning process; the Americans, Germans, and
Pakistani are placed in the middle; while Albanians at the lowest. In Canada less than
40% teachers had enough material and equipment for their work (Stenlund, 1990). As regards physical surroundings of the work, the English and Singapore schools rank at the top; Pakistani along with Japanese and German schools are placed somewhere in the middle ; while Americans and Albanians rank at the lowest. Collegial support is the best in USA and lowest in Japan and Germany. Pakistani and Albanian teachers are found to be more frequently involved in academic meetings with their colleagues.
Professional interaction among Canadian teachers was not sufficient (Ball &
Stenlund, 1990). The support from head teacher is highly encouraged in Albanian schools; English, Singapore, and Pakistani schools are placed at second, third, and fourth positions respectively; while Germans rank at the low est. In Pakistan teachers get less support from the parents of the students. The situation was found comparatively better in Albania and USA; other countries were found somewhere in the middle. As regard with respect in the society, Albanian teachers are placed at high esteem in the society; the English are placed at the lowest order. Job security, monthly pay, and other allowances are found to be highest among German teachers.
Singapore and American teachers are next to the highest; Albanian and Pakistani ranked at the lowest. Pakistani teachers get more than two times less parental support than their colleagues from other countries. Job security, pay, and professional union are more highly predictors of job satisfaction among German teachers in comparison to other developed nations like Japan, USA, and UK (Lessmann & Gigerich, 1990).
51
Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction
When employees enter the workplace, they have an expectation and perception of their supervisor. After some experience their perceptions contradict with original expectation which led to job dissatisfaction (Elpers & Westhuis, 2008). While studying job satisfaction in international context, Saeed (1997) investigated that principal’s leadership style of principal, prestige of school, financial incentives, working conditions, and parental support were the main sources of job satisfaction which impacts students’ achievement. Zigarreli (1996) referred job satisfaction as a statistically momentous analyst in effective schools. The job satisfaction of teachers was influenced by the behavior of leaders (Bogler, 2001; Dinham & Scott, 2000;
Ostroff, 1992). Oshagbemi (2000) identified the sources of burnout and job dissatisfaction as school culture, leadership, communication, associations with community, reputation, and work pressure. Surveys of dissatisfied teachers found administrative factors were related with job frustration. A study conducted by
Mehrotra (2005) found no significant difference between public and private school principals’ leadership styles. Teachers in public schools are more satisfied than private schools. Miller (2006) revealed that job satisfaction is extensively studied attitudinal effect of participative leadership. Although, their results were inconsistent.
According to Yukl (2002) sometimes participative leadership resulted in higher satisfaction and performance, and at other times it does not. When there is a hell of difference between expected and perceived feelings dissatisfaction will occur. Elpers
& Westhuis (2008) found a noteworthy divergence between social workers’ expected and perceived leadership, and the difference was associated with their jobs.
Employees are encouraged to employ supportive and directive leadership styles
(Ogbeide, Groves, & Cho, 2008). Participative management styles and decision-
52 making increase the level of job satisfaction (Soonhee, 2002). The job satisfaction of teachers has focused on the effects of exogenous variables like the leadership style of principals, decision-making strategie s, and burnout (Kirby, Paradise, & King, 1992;
Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Silins, 1992).
53
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
The study was designed to compare the impact of principals’ leadership styles on the job satisfaction of public sector secondary school teachers in Punjab province.
The leadership styles of the head teachers of these institutions were also explored.
This chapter provides a detailed description and justification of the methodology and procedure in the present investigation. The population of the study, sampling procedure, final sample, hypotheses, variables of the study, instruments used, their validation and pilot testing, procedure for collection of data, analysis through statistical techniques, and permission to conduct the research are also taken under black and white.
Population of the Study
The population of the study consisted of 5143 male and female public sector secondary schools situated in all 36 districts in the province of the Punjab.
Sample of the Study
List of schools was taken from Directorate of Staff Development (DSD).
There are 36 districts in the province of the Punjab. They are further subdivided into eight Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE). One district from each
Board was selected randomly. Due to gender and location of schools, they are distributed in male, female, urban, and rural category. The principals of the schools were requested to fill leadership styles measurement questionnaire and about four secondary school teachers were requested to participate in the study and fill the job satisfaction scale for teachers provided they have worked under the same principal for at least one year. Eight of fifteen schools were selected using random sampling.
54
Simple random sample was used in urban areas while in rural areas due to shortage of teachers, census and convenient sampling was used. The detailed description of schools in each district is given in the flow chart at next page.
55
Figure 1. Public Sector Secondary Schools in Punjab 5143
Bahawalpur 30 Male Schools 15 Female Sch. 15
1511515
Chakwal 36 Male Schools 19 Female Sch. 17
D. G. Khan 28 Male Schools 17 Female Sch. 11
Faisalabad 37 Male Schools 21 Female Sch. 16
Gujranwala 50 Male Schools 34 Female Sch.
Lahore 60 Male Schools 31 Female Sch. 29 1511515
Sahiwal 36 Male Schools 25 Female Sch. 11 1511515
Sargodha 33 Male Schools 19 Female Sch. 14
Total 310 Male Sch. 181 Female Sch. 129 1511515
Figure 1 shows that 310 schools were selected by the researcher from 8 districts in the province of the Punjab
56
Hypotheses
Following null hypotheses were formulated to conduct the study:
Ho1: There is no significant difference between Autocratic and democratic
leadership styles of principals.
Ho2: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female
principals working in rural areas.
Ho3: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female
principals working in urban areas.
Ho4: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male principals
working in urban and rural areas.
Ho5: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of female principals
working in urban and rural areas.
Ho6: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Ho7: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
Ho8: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Ho9: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Ho10: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
57
Ho11: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
Ho12: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
Ho13: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
Ho14: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
Ho15: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
Ho16: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Ho17: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Ho18: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
Ho19: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
58
Ho20: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Ho21: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
Ho22: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
Ho23: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
Ho24: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
Ho25: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
Ho26: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
Ho27: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male a nd female
arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Ho28: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
59
Ho29: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Ho30: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
male science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic
style of leadership.
Ho31: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
female science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic
style of leadership.
Ho32: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic
style of leadership.
Ho33: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
female science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic
style of leadership.
Ho34: There is no significant difference of overall job satisfaction level on male and
female secondary school teachers.
Ho35: There is no significant differenc e of age on overall job satisfaction level of
male and female teachers.
Ho36: There is no significant difference of qualification on overall job satisfaction
level of male and female teachers.
Ho37: There is no significant difference of experience on overa ll job satisfaction
level of male and female teachers.
Ho38: There is no significant difference of workload on overall job satisfaction level
of male and female teachers.
60
Ho39: There is no significant difference of refresher courses on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
Ho40: There is no significant difference of teachers’ strength on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
Ho41: There is no significant difference of students’ enrollment on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
Ho42: There is no significant difference of posting on overall job satisfaction level of
male and female teachers.
Ho43: There is no significant difference of sources of income on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
Ho44: There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on male and
female teachers.
Ho45: There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and
rural teachers.
Ho46: There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on science
and arts teachers.
Instruments of the Study
Data were collected with the help of two instruments: (i). Leadership Styles
Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ), and (ii). Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers
(JSST). The independent variable was principals’ leadership style and dependent variable was teachers’ job satisfaction. Separate instruments for both of the variables were used. As these instruments were already used for Ph. D research, permission to use these instruments was taken. These instruments were pilot tested for this study to check the reliability, validity and suitability. Leadership styles measurement questionnaire was in Urdu which translated in English. The second instrument job
61 satisfaction scale for teachers was in English. It was translated in Urdu. The questionnaires were adapted using back-translation. There was high level of consistency between the two translations and minor differences were corrected after discussion and made possible appropriateness for cultural language system. It was researcher’s perception that bilingual instruments may get better results from the respondents due to relevancy.
Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ)
Leadership styles measurement questionnaire was developed by Iqbal in 2005.
It was adapted for this study. Out of 39 items, 38 items were taken for this study. This instrument had two dimensions i.e. autocratic and democratic leadership styles. It was designed to place each head of the institute in one of the two leadership styles. It is attached at Appendix A. The items distribution of each style is given as under:
Table 3.1
Item Breakup of Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ)
S. no Leadership style Item numbers
1. Autocratic style 1,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,24,29,32,35,38
2. Democratic style 2,3,4,5,11,13,22,23,25,26,27,28,30,31,33,34,36,37
The table shows that autocratic leadership style has twenty items and democratic leadership style has eighteen items
Pilot testing of Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire
The research instrument was administered to 40 head teachers which were not included in the sample . Twenty heads belong to urban areas of which 10 were males and 10 females, likewise 20 heads belonging to rural areas of which 10 were males
62 and 10 females. The responses of the head teachers were tabulated and the factor analysis was made. Internal consistency coefficient (using Cronbach Alpha) was computed for reliability and its value was 0.658. This value was low for conducting a research. After deleting the item numbers 3, 11, and 14 that have low correlation, the value of Alpha was raised to 0.764. So they were rephrased and pilot tested again to other 40 heads. After second factor analysis , the value of Alpha raised to 0.80 which was good for conducting a research. As this instrument have two factors i.e. autocratic and democratic leadership styles, the separate values of these were 0.647and 0.750 respectively.
Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers (JSST)
The second instrument (JSST) was developed by Mehrotra in 2005. It is a
Likert type close ended instrument. There were 60 items having 6 factors related to job satisfaction. They were: pay 8 items, work 13 items, promotion 7 items, working group 7 items, working conditions 14 items, and supervision 11 items. The item breakup is given in table 2.
Table 3.2
Item Breakup of Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers (JSST)
S. No. Factors of the scale Item numbers
1. Pay 6,17,19,23,31,54,55,59 2. Work 1,3,5,13,15,18,20,22,24,25,27,28,30 3. Promotion 4,33,36,42,43,45,60 4. Work group (colleagues) 9,10,11,21,29,47,56 5. Working conditions 2,7,12,14,16,26,34,38,40,44,46,49,50,53 6. Supervision 8,32,35,37,39,41,48,51,52,57,58
63
The table shows that six factors have sixty items. They are further subdivided into pay 8 items; work 13 items; promotion 7 items; work group 7 items; working conditions 14 items; and supervision 11 items.
Pilot Testing of Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers
The instrument was administered to 100 secondary school teachers other than the sample for pilot testing. Fifty teachers were taken from urban areas of which 25 were males and 25 females and in the same ratio they were participated from rural areas. The teachers were requested to tick the options with their best choice they perceive. The responses from the respondents were tabulated and the factor analysis was made. Internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) was computed for reliability of the instrument and its value was 0.726. The items that have low correlation were rephrased and pilot tested again on another sample of 100 teachers.
The overall value of Alpha was raised to 0.84 which was acceptable. This instrument had six factors. The factor wise separate reliability was, pay .624, work .650, promotion .732, work group .670, working conditions .615, and supervision .690.
Demographic Survey
Part of the instruments was a detailed demographic survey which included for both teaching staff and principals. Sixteen items were included in the survey, such as gender, age, qualification, exact headship experience, total academic meetings with staff in a month, number of refresher courses attended, teaching experience, duration in current school, students’ and teachers’ strength in the school, total periods taught in a week, other sources of income with teaching salary, present posting at home or out station, years of service with the current principal, location of school at rural or urban areas, and category of te achers as SST science or arts. These items were prominent in the literature as possible sources of mediated influence that could account for
64 variations in leadership styles and teachers’ level of satisfaction. They present a sound portrait for background of respondents.
Validity of the Instruments
The two instruments were pilot tested for their validity. These instruments were validated independently by the experts in the field. The experts in the field of test and measurement verified the face as well as content validity of instruments.
Reliability of the Instruments
As mentioned above, the reliability of Leadership Styles Measurement
Questionnaire was 0.80. The reliability of Job Satisfaction scale for Teachers was
0.84.
Data collection procedure
Data was collected personally and through trained assistants by survey method. Printed instructions were provided to respondents to fill out the questionnaires. The justification behind was that it reduces biased feed back to a great extent. Completed questionnaires were collected by the researcher and the assistants personally after one week of delivering the questionnaires. In this way the data were collected efficiently and minimum chances for loosing the questionnaires. Out of 352,
310 principals returned the completed questionnaires. Three schools were deleted from the analysis because the principals of those schools got equal scores on both of the leadership styles. So the response rate was 88%.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed by using SPSS version 15.0. Independent sample t-test and one way ANOVA were applied to test the hypotheses. The individual response
65 measures of leadership styles and job satisfaction level were aggregated. Means and factor scores were calculated yielding both individual and group leve l data for analysis.
Summary
This chapter has detailed the theoretical rationale and logic underpinning the present investigation the researcher has made. The methodology employed in this study was also discussed. Especially, population, sample selected, instruments applied, methods of data collection, statistical methods used, and the null hypotheses formulated all were discussed logically and in detail.
66
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis and Interpretation
This chapter deals with statistical analysis of data and interpretation of results.
Data were scrutinized by applying t-test, ANOVA, and computing percentages. Results are presented in tables. In first part five null hypotheses about the leadership styles of principals were tested by applying t-test. The second part deal with twenty eight null hypotheses regarding the impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction were tested by applying t-test. The third part treat ten null hypotheses concerning the demographic variables on overall job satisfaction level were tested by applying t-test and ANOVA.
Finally, three null hypotheses about different dimensions of job satisfaction were tested by applying t-test. The following table shows the type of data and number of null hypotheses tested in each part.
Table 4. 1
Summary and Type of Data and Method of Analysis
S. No Section(Part) Data type Hypotheses Methods of Analysis
I LSMQ Interval 1-5 Percentage, t-test II JSST Interval 6-46 t-test, ANOVA
Part 1: Comparison of Leadership Styles of Male and Female Principals
The following table represents the percentage of principals of secondary schools with autocratic and democratic leadership styles.
67
Table 4. 2
Percentage of Heads with Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles
Leadership style Number Percentage
Autocratic 54 17.6 Democratic 253 82.4
Total 307 100
The table reveals that out of 307, 17.6% of heads had autocratic leadership style, while 82.4 heads had democratic leadership style.
Table 4.3
Percentage of Male and Female Principals Working in Urban Areas
Principals Number Percentage
Males 83 27 Females 71 23
Total 154 50
It is apparent that out of 154, 27% of male principals and 23% of female principals were working in urban areas.
Table 4.4
Percentage of Male and Female Principals Working in Rural Areas
Principals Number Percentage
Males 98 32 Females 55 18
Total 153 50
The table revealed that out of 153, 32% of male principals while 18% of female principals were working in rural areas.
68
Ho1: There is no significant difference between Autocratic and democratic
leadership styles of principals.
The following table compares the autocratic and democratic leadership styles of principals.
Table 4.5
Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles of Principals
L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value
Total Autocratic 54 153.29 16.22 305 .958 leadership Democratic 253 151.64 10.20
Results indicate no significant difference between autocratic style (M=
153.29, SD= 16.22) and democratic style (M=151.64, SD=10.20), t (305) =.958. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between autocratic and democratic leadership styles of principals” was accepted. It was inferred that principals with autocratic and democratic leadership styles did not show significant difference.
Ho2: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female
principals working in rural areas.
The following table com pares the leadership styles among male and female principals
working in rural areas.
69
Table 4.6
Leadership Styles of Principals in Rural Areas
L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value
Total Rural Males 98 148.51 11.51 151 -3.225* leadership Rural Females 55 154.56 10.42 *P< .05.
Table reveals a significant difference between rural male (M= 148.51, SD=
11.51) and rural female principals (M =154.56, SD=10.42), t (151) =-3.225. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female principals working in rural areas” was rejected, which concluded that there was a different leadership styles of male and female principals in rural areas.
Ho3: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female
principals working in urban areas.
The following table compares the leadership styles among male and female principals working in urban areas.
Table 4.7
Male and Female Principals in Urban Areas
L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value
Total Urban Males 83 150.15 11.30 152 -3.717* leadership Urban Females 71 156.71 10.44 *P< .05.
Table shows a significant difference between urban male (M= 150.15, SD=
11.30) and urban female principals (M=156.71, SD=10.44), t (152) =-3.717.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female principals working in urban areas” was rejected.
70
It was revealed that male and female principals showed significant difference between the leadership styles in urban areas.
Ho4: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male principals
working in urban and rural areas.
The following table compares the leadership styles among male principals working in urban and rural areas.
Table 4.8
Male Principals Working in Urban and Rural Areas
L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value
Total Urban Males 83 150.15 11.30 179 .966 leadership Rural Males 98 148.51 11.51
Results reflect no significant difference betwee n urban male (M= 150.15, SD=
11.30) and rural male principals (M=148.51, SD=11.51), t (179) =.966. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among leadership styles of male principals working in urban and rural areas” was accepte d. No significant difference was found among urban and rural male principals.
Ho5: There is no significant difference among leadership styles of female principals
working in urban and rural areas.
The following table compares the leadership styles among female principals working in urban and rural areas.
71
Table 4.9
Female Principals in Urban and Rural Areas
L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value
Total Urban Females 71 156.71 10.44 124 1.149 leadership Rural Females 55 154.56 10.42
Results signify no significant difference between urban female (M= 156.71,
SD= 10.44) and rural female principals (M =154.56, SD=10.42), t (124) =1.149. Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among leadership styles of female principals working in urban and rural areas” was accepted, which revealed that female principals utilized identical leadership styles in urban and rural areas.
Part II: Comparison of the Impact of Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles on the Job Satisfaction of Teachers
Ho6: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.10
Urban and Rural Teachers Working under Democratic Style of Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban 423 213.96 20.24 902 .679 Rural 481 213.07 19.14
Results denote no significant difference between urban teachers (M = 213.96,
SD= 20.24) and rural teachers (M=213.07, SD=19.14), t (902) =.679. So, the null
72 hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was summarized that urban and rural secondary school teachers did not show significant difference between job satisfaction levels under democratic leadership style.
Ho7: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural science teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.11
Urban and Rural Science Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Science 143 214.11 16.14 298 .752 Rural Science 157 212.61 18.22
The table illustrates no significant difference between urban science (M=
214.11, SD= 16.14) and rural science teachers (M=212.61, SD=18.22), t (298) =.752.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was obvious that urban and rural science teachers had no significant difference between levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
Ho8: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
73
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.12
Urban and Rural Arts Teachers Working under Democratic Style
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Arts 280 213.88 22.07 602 .348 Rural Arts 324 213.29 19.60
Table suggests no significant difference between urban arts (M= 213.88, SD=
22.07) and rural arts teachers (M=213.29, SD=19.60), t (602) =.348. Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was apparent that urban and rural arts teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
Ho9: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural male teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.13
Urban and Rural Male Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Males 226 208.95 20.28 549 -1.937* Rural Males 325 212.16 18.25 *P< .05.
74
Table confirms a significant difference between urban male (M= 208.95, SD=
20.28) and rural male teachers (M=212.16, SD=18.25), t (549) =-1.937. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural male secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was evident that urban and rural male secondary school teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Male teachers in rural schools were more satisfied having higher mean value.
Ho10: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural female teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.14
Urban and Rural Female Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Females 197 219.71 18.66 351 2.249* Rural Females 156 214.98 20.81 *P< .05.
The results demons trate a significant difference between urban female (M=
219.71, SD= 18.66) and rural female teachers (M=214.98, SD=20.81), t (351) =2.249.
Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural female secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was resulted that urban and rural female teachers showed significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction
75 under democratic leadership style. Urban female teachers were more satisfied than rural female teachers, having higher mean value.
Ho11: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares job satisfaction level among urban and rural male science teachers working under democratic leadership.
Table 4.15
Urban and Rural Male Science Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Male Sc. 81 211. 40 17.71 198 -.558 Rural Male Sc. 119 212.84 17.88
Results explain no significant difference between urban male science (M=
211.40, SD= 17.71) and rural male science teachers (M =212.84, SD=17.88), t (198) =-
.558. Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural male science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was illustrated that urban and rural male science teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
Ho12: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural male arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
76
Table 4.16
Urban and Rural Male Arts Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Male Arts 145 207.58 21.52 349 -1.949* Rural Male Arts 206 211.77 18.50 *P< .05.
Table reflects a significant difference between urban male arts (M= 207.58,
SD= 21.52) and rural male arts teachers (M=211.77, SD=18.50), t (349) =-1.949.
Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural male arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was proved that urban and rural male arts teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Rural areas’ teachers were more satisfied than urban areas.
Ho13: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural female science teachers working under democratic leadership.
Table 4.17
Urban and Rural Female Science Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Female Sc. 62 217.66 13.16 98 1.758 Rural Female Sc. 38 211.92 19.48
77
The table exposes no significant difference between urban female science (M=
217.66, SD= 13.16) and rural female science teachers (M=211.92, SD=19.48), t (98)
=1.758. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural female science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was revealed that urban and rural female science teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
Ho14: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural female arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.18
Urban and Rural Female Arts Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Urban Female Arts 135 220.65 26.67 251 1.780 Rural Female Arts 118 215.96 21.20
Results show no significant difference between urban female arts (M= 220.65,
SD= 26.67) and rural female arts teachers (M=215.96, SD=21.20), t (251) =1.780.
Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was found that urban and rural female arts teachers showed no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
78
Ho15: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and female science teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.19
Male and Female Science Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Male Science 200 212.26 17.78 298 -1.527 Female Science 100 215.48 16.01
Results find no significant difference between male science (M= 212.26, SD=
17.78) and female science teachers (M=215.48, SD=16.01), t (298) =-1.527. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. Results showed no significant difference among male and female science teachers working under democratic leadership style.
Ho16: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and female arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
79
Table 4.20
Male and Female Arts Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Male Arts 351 210.04 19.88 602 -5.017* Female Arts 253 218.47 21.01 *P< .05.
The table shows a significant difference between male arts (M= 210.04, SD=
19.88) and female arts teachers (M=218.47, SD=21.01), t (602) =-5.017. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was apparent that male and female arts teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
Female arts secondary school teachers were more satisfied than male arts teachers, having higher mean value.
Ho17: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.21
Urban and Rural Teachers under Autocratic Style of Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban 110 213.53 21.69 188 -.400 Rural 80 214.71 17.37
Results reflect no significant difference between urban (M= 213.53, SD=
21.69) and rural teachers (M=214.71, SD=17.37), t (188) =-.400. Thus, the null
80 hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was evident that urban and rural teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho18: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural science teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.22
Urban and Rural Science Teachers under Autocratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Science 38 209.02 29.46 63 -.807 Rural Science 27 213.96 13.97
Results express no significant difference between urban science (M = 209.02,
SD= 29.46) and rural science teachers (M=213.96, SD=13.97), t (63) =-.807. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. Evident showed that urba n and rural science secondary school teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho19: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
81
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.23
Urban and Rural Arts Teachers under Autocratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Arts 72 215.91 15.92 123 .263 Rural Arts 53 215.09 18.98
Results reveal no significant difference between urban arts (M= 215.91, SD=
15.92) and rural arts teachers (M=215.09, SD=18.98), t (123) =.263. Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was proved that urban and rural arts teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho20: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural male teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
82
Table 4.24
Urban and Rural Male Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Males 59 210.61 16.86 99 -.398 Rural Males 42 211.95 16.45
Results illustrate no significant difference between urban male (M= 210.61,
SD= 16.86) and rural male teachers (M=211.95, SD=16.45), t (99) =-.398. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural male secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was found that urban and rural male teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho21: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural female teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.25
Urban and Rural Female Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Females 51 216.92 25.96 87 -.171 Rural Females 38 217.76 18.06
Results demonstrate no significant difference between urban female (M=
216.92, SD= 25.96) and rural female teachers (M=217.76, SD=18.06), t (87) =-.171.
Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job
83 satisfaction of urban and rural female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was apparent that urban and rural female teachers had no significant difference between the leve ls of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho22: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural male science teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.26
Urban and Rural Male Science Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Male Sc. 28 210.50 16.97 42 -.547 Rural Male Sc. 16 213.12 11.77
The table shows no significant difference between urban male science (M=
210.50, SD= 16.97) and rural male science teachers (M =213.12, SD=11.77), t (42) =-
.547. Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural male science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was obvious that urban and rural male science teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho23: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
male arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
84
The following ta ble compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural male arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.27
Urban and Rural Male Arts Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Male Arts 31 210.70 17.04 55 -.109 Rural Male Arts 26 211.23 18.95
Results find no significant difference between urban male arts (M= 210.70,
SD= 17.04) and rural male arts teachers (M=211.23, SD=18.95), t (55) =-.109. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural male arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was found that urban and rural male arts teachers had no significant difference in their levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho24: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural female science teachers working under autocratic leadership.
85
Table 4.28
Urban and Rural Female Science Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Female Sc. 10 204.90 51.75 19 -.623 Rural Female Sc. 11 215.18 17.23
The table illustrates no significant difference between urban female science
(M= 204.90, SD= 51.75) and rural female science teachers (M=215.18, SD=17.23), t
(19) =-.623. Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no signif icant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was revealed that urban and rural female science teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho25: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural
female arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural female arts teachers working under autocratic leadership.
Table 4.29
Urban and Rural Female Arts Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Urban Female Arts 41 219.85 13.97 66 .263 Rural Female Arts 27 218.81 18.60
Results explain no significant difference between urban female arts (M=
219.85, SD= 13.97) and rural female arts teachers (M=218.81, SD=18.60), t (66)
86
=.263. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was found that urban and rural female arts teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction.
Ho26: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and female science teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.30
Male and Female Science Teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Males Science 44 211.45 15.19 63 .180 Females Science 21 210.28 37.17
Results signify no significant difference between male science (M= 211.45,
SD= 15.19) and female science teachers (M=210.28, SD=37.17), t (63) =.180. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was evident that male and female science teachers had no significant difference between their job satisfaction levels.
Ho27: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and female arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
87
Table 4.31
Male and female arts teachers
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Males Arts 57 210.94 17.77 123 -2.823* Females Arts 68 219.44 15.84 *P< .05.
Table reflects a significant difference between male arts (M= 210.94, SD=
17.77) and female arts teachers (M=219.44, SD=15.84), t (123) =-2.823. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was concluded that male and female arts teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Female arts teachers were more satisfied than male arts teachers , having higher mean value.
Ho28: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and female teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
88
Table 4.32
Male and Female Teachers under Democratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Males 551 210.84 19.16 902 -5.124* Females 353 217.62 19.75 *P< .05.
Results express a significant difference between male (M= 210.84, SD= 19.16) and female teachers (M=217.62, SD=19.75), t (902) =-5.124. Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was found that male and female teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Female teachers were more satisfied than male teachers, having higher mean value.
Ho29: There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female
secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and female teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.33
Male and Female Teachers under Autocratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Males 101 211.16 16.62 188 -2.127* Females 89 217.28 22.81 *P< .05.
Table reflects a significant difference between male (M= 211.16, SD= 16.62) and female teachers (M=217.28, SD=22.81), t (188) =-2.127. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and
89 female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was evident that male and female teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style. Female teachers showed higher satisfaction than males under autocratic style.
Ho30: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
male science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic
style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male science and arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.34
Male Science and Arts Teachers under Democratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Males Science 200 212.26 17.78 549 1.307 Males Arts 351 210.04 19.88
Table shows no significant difference between male science (M= 212.26, SD=
17.78) and male arts teachers (M=210.04, SD=19.88), t (549) =1.307. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among male science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was concluded that male science and arts teacher s did not show significant difference between job satisfaction.
Ho31: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
female science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic
style of leadership.
90
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among female science and arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.
Table 4.35
Female Science and Arts Teachers under Democratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Democratic Females Science 100 215.48 16.01 351 -1.283 Females Arts 253 218.47 21.01
Results illustrate no significant difference between female science (M=
215.48, SD= 16.01) and female arts teachers (M=218.47, SD=21.01), t (351) =-1.283.
Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among female science and arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was manifested that female science and arts teachers did not show their job satisfaction level significantly.
Ho32: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic
style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male science and arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.36
Male Science and Arts Teachers under Autocratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Males Science 44 211.45 15.19 99 .151 Males Arts 57 210.94 17.77
91
Table shows no significant difference between male science (M= 211.45, SD=
15.19) and male arts teachers (M=210.94, SD=17.77), t (99) =.151. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was palpable that male science and arts teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
Ho33: There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
female science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic
style of leadership.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among female science and arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
Table 4.37
Female Science and Arts Teachers under Autocratic Leadership
L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Autocratic Female Science 21 210.28 37.17 87 -1.622 Female Arts 68 219.44 15.84
Results reflect no significant difference between female science (M = 210.28,
SD= 37.17) and female arts teachers (M=219.44, SD=15.84), t (87) =-1.622. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among female science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was flagrant that female science and arts teachers did not show any significant difference.
92
Part III: Comparison of the Impact of Demographic Variables on Overall Job
Satisfaction of Teachers
Ho34: There is no significant difference of overall job satisfaction level on male and
female secondary school teac hers.
The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and female teachers.
Table 4.38
Job Satisfaction Level among Male and Female Teachers
Job Satisfaction Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value
Jstotal Males 652 210.89 18.72 1092 -5.557* Females 442 217.55 20.37 *P< .05.
Table reveals a significant difference between male (M = 210.89, SD= 18.72) and female teachers (M=217.55, SD=20.37), t (1092) =-5.557. Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of overall job satisfaction level on male and female secondary school teachers” was rejected. It was conspicuous that male and female teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction. Female secondary school teachers were more satisf ied than male secondary school teachers, having higher mean value.
Ho35: There is no significant difference of age on overall job satisfaction level of
male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of age on job satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
93
Table 4.39a
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Age among Male Teachers
Males Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 868.166 3 289.389
Within Groups 228741.9 648 352.997 .820 .483
Total 229610.1 651
Results F (3, 289) = .820, P= .483 indicate that job satisfaction of male teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. It was obvious that male teachers’ overall job satisfaction remain the same with age span.
Table 4.39b
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Age among Female Teachers
Females Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 1322.622 3 440.87
Within Groups 181840.6 438 415.16 1.062 .365
Total 183163.2 441
Results F (3, 440) = 1.062, P= .365 reflect that job satisfaction for female teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. In other words we can say that job satisfaction among female teachers did not change through out the ir teaching career.
Ho36: There is no significant difference of qualification on overall job satisfaction
level of male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of qualification on job satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
94
Table 4.40a
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Qualification among Male Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 4512.216 7 644.60
Within Groups 225097.9 644 349.53 1.844 .076
Total 2296101.1 651
Results F (7, 644) = 1.844, P= .076 express that job satisfaction levels were not significantly different with qualification among male teachers. It was apparent that qualification levels did not change the level of job satisfaction among male teachers.
Table 4.40b
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Qualification among Female Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 3905.022 7 557.86
Within Groups 179258.2 434 413.03 1.351 .225
Total 183163.2 441
The table F (7, 557) = 1.351, P= .225 indicates that job satisfaction among female teachers was not significantly different with qualification. It was evident that female teachers did not show any significant difference with qualification.
Ho37: There is no significant difference of experience on overall job satisfaction
level of male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of experience on job satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
95
Table 4.41a
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Experience among Male Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 42.806 2 21.40
Within Groups 229567.3 649 353.72 .061 .941
Total 229610.1 651
The table F (2, 21) = .061, P= .941 reflects that job satisfaction level was not significant at .05 level. It was concluded that experience levels did not change the level of job satisfaction among male teachers in secondary schools.
Table 4.41b
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Experience among Female Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 861.289 2 430.64
Within Groups 182301.9 439 415.26 1.037 .355
Total 183163.2 441
The table F (2, 430) = 1.037, P= .355 illustrates that job satisfaction level was not significantly different with experience among female teachers. It was revealed that experience levels did not show any significance with job satisfaction among female teachers.
Ho38: There is no significant difference of workload on overall job satisfaction level
of male and female teachers.
The following table compares the workload on overall job satisfactio n level of teachers.
96
Table 4.42
Job Satisfaction Level on Work Load of Secondary School Teachers
Work load Periods/week N Mean SD df t-value
Jstotal Up to 27 248 213.22 17.69 1092 -.324 Above 27 846 213.69 20.26
The results show no significa nt difference between work load up to 27 (M=
213.22, SD= 17.69) and above 27 (M=213.69, SD=20.26), t (1092) =-.324. Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of workload on overall job satisfaction level of male and female te achers” was accepted. It was concluded that academic work load of teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction.
Ho39: There is no significant difference of refresher courses on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of refresher courses on job satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
Table 4.43a
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Refresher Courses among Male Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 766.514 2 383.25
Within Groups 228843.6 649 352.61 1.087 .338
Total 229610.1 651
97
Results F (2, 383) = 1.087, P= .338 show that job satisfaction level was not significant at .05 level. It was found that refresher courses had not apparent effect on the level of job satisfaction among males.
Table 4.43b
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Refresher Courses in Female Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 372.358 2 186.17
Within Groups 182790.8 439 416.38 .447 .640
Total 183163.2 441
Results F (2, 186) = .447, P= .640 indicate that job satisfaction level was not significant at .05 level. It was conspicuous that refresher courses did not show any relevance with job satisfaction among female teachers in secondary schools.
Ho40: There is no significant difference of teachers’ strength on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of teachers’ strength on job satisfaction level of male and female te achers.
Table 4.44a
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Teachers’ Strength among Males
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 815.530 2 407.76
Within Groups 228794.6 649 352.53 1.157 .315
Total 229610.1 651
98
Results F (2, 407) = 1.157, P= .315 reveal that job satisfaction level was not significant at .05 level. It was evident that teachers’ strength did not show any relationship with job satisfaction among male teachers in secondary schools.
Table 4.44b
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Teachers’ Strength among Females
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 27.269 2 13.63
Within Groups 183135.9 439 417.16 .033 .968
Total 183163.2 441
The table F (2, 13) = .033, P= .968 indicates that job satisfaction level was not significant at .05 level. It was flagrant that teachers’ strength did not increase or decrease the level of job satisfaction among female teachers.
Ho41: There is no significant difference of students’ enrollment on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of students’ enrollment on job satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
Table 4.45a
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Enrollment on Male Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 182.653 2 91.32
Within Groups 229427.5 649 353.50 .258 .772
Total 229610.1 651
The table F (2, 91) = .258, P= .772 reflects that job satisfaction was not significant at 0.05 level. It was obvious that increased or decreased students’
99 enrollment did not consider positive effect on the level of job satisfaction among male teachers.
Table 4.45b
One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Enrollment on Female Teachers
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Groups 1927.680 2 963.84
Within Groups 181235.5 439 412.83 2.335 .098
Total 183163.2 441
Results F (2, 963) = 2.335, P= .098 indicate that job satisfaction level was not significant at .05 level. It was flagrant that enrollment of students did not affect job satisfaction among female teachers.
Ho42: There is no significant difference of posting on overall job satisfaction level of
male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of posting on job satisfaction level of teachers.
Table 4.46
Job Satisfaction Level on Posting of Secondary School Teachers
Job satisfaction Posting N Mean SD df t-value
Jstotal Home station 824 213.92 19.93 1092 .998 Out station 270 212.54 18.99
Table illustrates no significant difference between home station (M= 213.92,
SD= 19.93) and out station posting (M=212.54, SD=18.99), t (1092) =.998. So the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of posting on overall job
100 satisfaction level of male and female teachers” was accepted. It was prominent that posting of teachers did not show significant difference on their job satisfaction levels.
Ho43: There is no significant difference of sources of income on overall job
satisfaction level of male and female teachers.
The following table compares the impact of income sources on job satisfaction level of teachers.
Table 4.47
Job Satisfaction Level with Other Sources of Income
Job satisfaction Other income N Mean SD df t-value
Jstotal Yes 218 210.09 18.56 1092 -2.937* No 876 214.45 19.89 *P< .05.
The results reflect a significant difference between positive (M= 210.09, SD=
18.56) and negative responses of teachers (M=214.45, SD=19.89), t (1092) =-2.937.
Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of sources of income on overall job satis faction level of male and female teachers” was rejected. It was apparent that sources of income of teachers had a significant difference on the levels of job satisfaction. The teachers who had only teaching pay were more satisfied than teachers who did part time jobs on the basis of mean value.
Part IV: Comparison of the Impact of Job Satisfaction Dimensions with respect to
Gender, School location, and Category of Teachers
Ho44: There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on male and
female teachers.
The following table compares the job satisfaction dimensions on male and female teachers.
101
Table 4.48
J. S. Dimensions with Male and Female Teachers
J. S. Dimensions Teachers type N Mean SD df t-value
Pay Males 689 25.83 3.69 1156 -2.367* Females 469 26.36 3.87
Work Males 683 49.44 5.25 1157 -4.716* Females 476 50.91 5.12
Promotion Males 689 24.31 3.55 1159 -2.217* Females 472 24.79 3.72
Work group Males 688 23.60 2.94 1162 -4.029* Females 476 24.30 2.94
Work conditions Males 682 95.50 5.42 1144 -4.577* Females 464 100.56 5.40
Supervision Males 676 40.47 7.14 1148 -5.266* Females 474 42.68 6.85 *P< .05.
The results demonstrate a significant difference in job satisfaction dimensions between male (M = 25.83, 49.44, 24.31, 23.60, 95.50, 40.47, SD= 3.69, 5.25, 3.55,
2.94, 5.42, 7.14) and female teachers (M=26.36, 50.91, 24.79, 24.30, 100.56, 42.68,
SD=3.87, 5.12, 3.72, 2.94, 5.40, 6.85), t (1156, 1157, 1159, 1162, 1144, 1148) =-
2.367, -4.716, -2.217, -4.029, -4.577, -5.266 respectively. So, the null hypothesis that,
“there is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on male and female teachers” was rejected. It was overt that all these dimensions had significant difference on the levels of job satisfaction among male and female teachers. Mean values shows that female teachers were more satisfied with all these dimensions of job satisfaction as compared with males.
102
Ho45: There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and
rural teachers.
The following table compares the job satisfaction dimensions on urban and rural teachers.
Table 4.49
J. S. Dimensions with Urban and Rural Teachers
J. S. Dimensions Teachers type N Mean SD df t-va lue
Pay Urban 561 26.19 3.83 1156 1.274 Rural 597 25.90 3.72
Work Urban 564 49.98 5.78 1157 -.383 Rural 595 50.10 4.68
Promotion Urban 562 24.41 3.66 1159 -.826 Rural 599 24.59 3.59
Work group Urban 567 23.94 2.85 1162 .571 Rural 597 23.84 3.06
Work conditions Urban 558 48.15 5.74 1144 2.093* Rural 588 47.47 5.16
Supervision Urban 560 41.24 7.50 1148 -.670 Rural 590 41.52 6.70 *P< .05.
The table reflects no significant difference in job satisfaction dimensions between urban (M= 26.19, 49.98, 24.41, 23.94, 48.15, 41.24, SD= 3.83, 5.78, 3.66,
2.85, 5.74, 7.50) and rural teachers (M=25.90, 50.10, 24.59, 23.84, 47.47, 41.52,
SD=3.72, 4.68, 3.59, 3.06, 5.16, 6.70), t (1156, 1157, 1159, 1162, 1144, 1148) =
1.274, -.383, -.826, .571, 2.093, -.670 respectively. Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and
103 rural teachers” was accepted. It was concluded that pay, work, promotion, colleagues, and supervision had no sig nificant difference on the levels of job satisfaction among urban and rural teachers. On the other hand, working conditions with a t-value (2.093) had a significant impact on the level of job satisfaction of secondary school teachers working in urban and rural areas. The teachers who were working in urban areas had greater satisfaction level with teaching than rural areas’ teachers on the basis of their mean value.
Ho46: There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on science
and arts teachers.
The following table compares the job satisfaction dimensions on science and arts teachers.
104
Table 4.50
J. S. dimensions with Science and Arts Teachers
J. S. Dimensions Teachers type N Mean SD df t-value
Pay Science 384 25.96 3.68 1156 -.527 Arts 774 26.08 3.82
Work Science 382 49.84 4.83 1157 -.946 Arts 777 50.15 5.44
Promotion Science 383 24.49 3.52 1159 -.057 Arts 778 24.51 3.68
Work group Science 387 23.76 3.04 1162 -1.011 Arts 777 23.95 2.91
Work conditions Science 379 47.88 5.02 1144 .334 Arts 767 47.76 5.66
Supervision Science 383 41.20 7.01 1148 -.621 Arts 767 41.47 7.15
The table demonstrates no significant difference in job satisfaction dimensions between science (M = 25.96, 49.84, 24.49, 23.76, 47.88, 41.20, SD= 3.68, 4.83, 3.52,
3.04, 5.02, 7.01) and arts teachers (M=26.08, 50.15, 24.51, 23.95, 47.76, 41.47,
SD=3.82, 5.44, 3.68, 2.91, 5.66, 7.15), t (1156, 1157, 1159, 1162, 1144, 1148) =-.527,
-.946, -.057, -1.011, .334, -.621 respectively. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on science and arts teachers” was accepted. It was apparent that pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and supervision had no significant difference on the levels of job satisfaction among science and arts teachers.
105
CHAPTER 5
Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations Summary Democratic leadership style was dominant with 82% of heads. No significant difference between autocratic and democratic leadership styles was found. Leadership styles of male and female principals in rural and in urban areas differed significantly.
When male and female principals in urban and rural areas were compared, they show the same leadership style. The same situation exists when female principals were compared. Significant difference was found under democratic leadership style. Male teachers in rural schools, especially arts teachers were more satisfied while working under democratic leadership style in rural settings. When male and female arts teachers were compared on both of the styles, they differed significantly, with female teachers more satisfied. No significant difference of job satisfaction was found under autocratic and democratic leadership styles when male and female teachers were compared in science subjects. When female teachers of urban and rural areas in science and arts subjects were compared under both of the styles, no significant difference in job satisfaction was found. When male teachers of urban and rural areas in science and arts subjects were compared under both of the styles, again no significant difference in job satisfaction was found except rural areas’ teachers under democratic leadership style who were more satisfied. Overall female teachers were more satisfied with their pay, work, working conditions, colleagues, promotion, teaching profession, and supervision than were males. Age, qualification, experience, academic work, refresher courses, number of teachers and students in school, and posting had no significant impact on job satisfaction levels of teachers.
106
Findings
The key findings of the study are as under:
Part I: Findings related to comparison of leadership styles of school principals
In this part findings regarding the first five null hypotheses are described.
Independent sample t-test was applied. These findings are about the leadership styles among male, female, male and female, urban, rural, and urban rural areas Principals.
1. Ho1 was about the difference between autocratic and democratic leadership
styles of principals. It was accepted as the t-value (.958) for total leadership
style was not significant at 0.05 level. It was inferred that principals with
autocratic and democratic leadership styles did not show any significant
difference between their leadership styles.
2. Ho2 regarding the difference about leadership styles of male and female
Principals working in rural areas was rejected because the t-value (-3.225) for
total leadership style was significant at 0.05 level. It was concluded that male
and female secondary school principals significantly showed a difference
between the leadership styles in rural areas.
3. Ho3 regarding the leadership styles of male and female principals working in
urban areas was rejected as t-value (-3.717) for total leadership style was
significant at 0.05 level. It was revealed that male and female principals
showed a significant difference between the leadership styles in urban areas.
4. Ho4 with t-value (.966) regarding the leadership styles of male principals
working in urban and rural areas was accepted. No significant difference was
found among urban and rural male principals.
107
5. Ho5 regarding the leadership styles of female principals working in urban and
rural areas was also was accepted. It was obvious by t -value (1.149) that there
was no significant difference among urban and rural female principals.
Part II: Findings about the impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction of teachers
This part contains twenty eight null hypotheses. Independe nt sample t-test was applied. The testing of null hypotheses revealed the following findings regarding the overall job satisfaction among male, female, male and female, urban, rural, urban and rural, science, arts, and science and arts teachers working under autocratic and democratic leadership styles.
1. Ho6 with t-value (.679) and df (902) regarding the urban and rural secondary
school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It
was depicted that urban and rural secondary school teachers did not show
significant difference between job satisfaction levels under democratic
leadership style.
2. Ho7 was about the comparison of urban and rural science secondary school
teachers working under democratic style of leadership. It was accepted being
not significant at .05 levels. It was found that urban and rural science
secondary school teachers had no significant difference between levels of job
satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
3. Ho8 was regarding the comparison of urban and rural arts secondary school
teachers working under democratic style of leadership. It was accepted. The
results showed that urban and rural arts teachers had no significant difference
between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
4. Ho9 about the comparison of urban and rural male secondary school teachers
working under democratic style of leadership with t-value (-1.937) was
108
rejected. It was evident that urban and rural male secondary school teachers
showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under
democratic leadership style. Male teachers were more satisfied in rural areas.
5. Ho10 regarding the urban and rural female secondary school teachers working
under democratic style of leadership was rejected at 0.05 level. It was revealed
that urban and rural female teachers showed significant difference between the
levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Urban female
teachers were more satisfied than rural female teachers, having higher mean
valu e.
6. Ho11 regarding the urban and rural male science secondary school teachers
working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It was illustrated
that urban and rural male science secondary school teachers had no significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership
style.
7. Ho12 regarding the comparison of urban and rural male arts secondary school
teachers working under democratic style of leadership with a t-value (-1.949)
and df (349) was rejected. It was proved that urban and rural male arts teachers
showed a significant difference between job satisfaction level under
democratic leadership style. Rural teachers were more satisfied than urban
teachers.
8. Ho13 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female science secondary
school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It
was conspicuous that urban and rural female science teachers did not show
significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic
leadership style.
109
9. Ho14 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary
school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It
was found that urban and rural female arts teachers showed no significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership
style.
10. Ho15 regarding the job satisfaction of male and female science secondary
school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted.
Results showed no significant difference among male and female science
teachers working under democratic leadership style.
11. Ho16 regarding the job satisfaction of male and female arts secondary school
teachers working under democratic style of leadership was rejected. It was
apparent that male and female arts teachers showed a significant difference
between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
Female arts secondary school teachers were more satisfied than male arts
teachers, having higher mean value.
12. Ho17 with a t-value (-.400) and df (188) regarding the job satisfaction of urban
and rural secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership was accepted. It was evident that urban and rural teachers did not
show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under
autocratic leadership style.
13. Ho18 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural science secondary school
teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. Evident
showed that urban and rural science secondary school teachers had no
significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic
leadership style.
110
14. Ho19 with a t-value (.263) regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural arts
secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was
accepted. It was proved that urban and rural arts secondary school teachers
had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under
autocratic leadership style.
15. Ho20 regarding the job satisfaction of urba n and rural male secondary school
teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. It was
found that urban and rural male secondary school teachers did not show
significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic
leadership style.
16. Ho21 was about the job satisfaction of urban and rural female secondary school
teachers working under autocratic style of leadership. It was accepted with a t-
value (-.171). The results showed that urban and rural female secondary
school teachers did not show any significant difference between the levels of
job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
17. Ho22 with a t-value (-.547) and df (42) regarding the job satisfaction of urban
and rural male science secondary school teachers working under autocratic
style of leadership was accepted. It was obvious that urban and rural male
science secondary school teachers did not show significant difference between
the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
18. Ho23 was about the job satisfaction of urban and rural male arts secondary
school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. It
was found that urban and rural male arts secondary school teachers had no
significant difference in their levels of job satisfaction under autocratic
leadership style.
111
19. Ho24 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female science
secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was
accepted with a t-value (-.623) and df (19). It was revealed that urban and rural
female science secondary school teachers had no significant difference
between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
20. Ho25 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary
school te achers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. It
was found that urban and rural female arts secondary school teachers did not
show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under
autocratic leadership style.
21. Ho26 with a t-value (.180) and df (63) about the job satisfaction of male and
female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of
leadership was accepted. The results showed that male and female science
secondary school teachers had no significant difference between the levels of
job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
22. Ho27 regarding the job satisfaction of male and female arts secondary school
teachers working under autocratic style of was rejected. It was concluded that
male and female arts secondary school teachers showed a significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership
style. Female arts teachers were more satisfied than male arts teachers, having
higher mean value.
23. Ho28 regarding the job satisfaction level of male and female secondary school
teachers working under democratic style of leadership was rejected. It was
found that male and female secondary school teachers showed a significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership
112
style. Female teachers were more satisfied than male teachers, having higher
mean value.
24. Ho29 with a (-2.127) and df (188) regarding the job satisfaction of male and
female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership
was rejected. It was evident that male and female secondary school teachers
showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under
autocratic leadership style. Female secondary school teachers showed higher
satisfaction than males under autocratic style.
25. Ho30 with a (1.307) and df (549) regarding the job satisfaction among male
science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of
leadership was accepted. It was concluded that male science and arts
secondary school teachers did not show significant difference between the
levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
26. Ho31 with a t-value (-1.283) and df (351) regarding the job satisfaction among
female science and arts secondary sc hool teachers working under democratic
style of leadership was accepted. It was manifested that female science and
arts secondary school teachers did not show significant difference between the
levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.
27. Ho32 with a t-value (-1.283) and df (351) about the job satisfaction among
male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic
style of leadership was accepted. It was palpable that male science and arts
teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction
under autocratic leadership style.
28. Ho33 with a t-value (-1.622) and df (87) about the job satisfaction among
female science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic
113
style of leadership was accepted. It was flagrant that female science and arts
secondary school teachers did not show any significant difference between the
levels of job satisfaction while working under autocratic leadership style.
Part III: Findings related to job satisfaction of teachers with demographic variables
In this part the findings about 10 null hypotheses were stated. Independent sample t-test and one way ANOVA were applied. These null hypotheses were about the overall job satisfaction level with respect to demographic variables.
1. Ho34 with a t-value (-5.557) and df (1092) regarding the overall job satisfaction
of male and female secondary school teachers was rejected. It was
conspicuous that male and female secondary school teachers showed a
significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction. Female secondary
school teachers were more satisfied than male secondary school teachers,
having higher mean value.
2. Ho35 regarding the impact of age on overall job satisfaction level of male and
female secondary school teachers. F value (.820) reflects that job satisfaction
of male teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. It was
obvious that male teachers’ overall job satisfaction remain the same with age
span. On the other hand, F value (1.062) reflects that job satisfaction for
female teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. In other
words we can say that job satisfaction among female teachers did not change
through out their teaching career.
3. Ho36 was about the impact of qualification on overall job satisfaction level of
male and female secondary school teachers. F values (1.844, 1.351) reflect
that job satisfaction levels were not significantly different with qualification
114
among male and female teachers respectively. It was apparent that
qualification levels did not change their level of job satisfaction.
4. Ho37 regarding the impact of experience on overall job satisfaction level of
male and female secondary school teachers. F values (.061, 1.844) reflect that
job satisfaction levels were not significant at .05 level. It was concluded that
experience levels did not change the level of job satisfaction among male and
female teachers in secondary schools respectively. They did not found
experience as significant variable related to their job satisfaction.
5. Ho38 with a t-value (-.324) regarding the impact of workload on overall job
satisfaction level of secondary school teachers was accepted. It was concluded
that academic work load of secondary school teachers did not show significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction.
6. Ho39 regarding the impact of refresher courses on overall job satisfaction level
of male and female secondary school teachers with F values (-.324, .447)
both for males and females respectively showed that it was not significant at
.05 level. It was found that number of refresher courses had not apparent effect
on the level of job satisfaction among male and female teachers.
7. Ho40 was about the impact of teachers’ strength on overall job satisfaction
le vel of teachers in secondary school teachers. F values (1.157, .033) reflect
that job satisfaction was not significant at .05 level both for male and female
teachers. It was evident that teachers’ strength did not increase or decrease the
job satisfaction among male and female teachers in secondary schools.
8. Ho41 concerning the impact of students’ enrollment on overall job satisfaction
level of male and female secondary school teachers. F values (.258, 2.335) for
overall job satisfaction were not significant at 0.05 levels both for males and
115
females respectively. It was obvious that increased or decreased students’
enrollment did not have positive or negative effect on the level of job
satisfaction among male and female teachers.
9. Ho42 with a t-value (.998) and df (1092) related to impact of posting on overall
job satisfaction level of secondary school teachers was not significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the null hypothesis was accepted. It was prominent that posting
did not considered significant predictor of job satisfaction.
10. Ho43 with a t-value (-2.937) and df (1092) regarding the impact of income
sources on overall job satisfaction level was rejected. It was apparent that
sources of income had a significant difference on the job satisfaction. The
teachers who had only teaching pay were more satisfied than teachers who did
part time jobs on the basis of mean value.
Part IV: Findings related to various dimensions job satisfaction of teachers
In this part, findings about 3 null hypotheses are explained. Independent sample t-test was applied. The testing of null hypotheses revealed the following findings regarding the dimensions (pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and supervision) of job satisfaction level with respect to gender, school location, and teacher category.
1. Ho44 regarding the impact of job satisfaction dimensions on male and female
secondary school teachers. The t-values (-2.367, -4.716, -2.217, -4.029, -
4.577, -5.266) for pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and
supervision as dimensions of job satisfaction were all significant at 0.05 level.
So the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference of job satisfaction
dimensions among male and female secondary school teachers was rejected. It
was obvious that all dimensions had a significant difference on the levels of
116
job satisfaction among male and female teachers. Mean values shows that
female teachers were more satisfied on all dimensions of job satisfaction as
compared with males.
2. Ho45 regarding the impact of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and rural
secondary school teachers. The t-values (1.274, -.383, -.826, .571, -.670) for
job satisfaction dimensions were not significant at 0.05 level. So the null
hypothesis that there is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions
on urban and rural secondary school teachers was accepted. It was concluded
that pay, work, promotion, colleagues, and supervision had no significant
difference on the levels of job satisfaction among urban and rural teachers. On
the other hand, working conditions with a t-value (2.093) had a significant
impact on the level of job satisfaction of secondary school teachers working in
urban and rural areas. The teachers who were working in urban areas had
greater satisfaction level with teaching than rural areas’ teachers on the basis
of their mean value.
3. Ho46 concerning impact of job satisfaction dimensions among science and arts
secondary school teachers. The t-values (-.527, -.946, -.057, -1.011, .334, -
.621) for job satisfaction dimensions were not significant at 0.05 level. So the
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference of job satisfaction
dimensions on science and arts secondary school teachers was accepted. It
was apparent that pay, work, promotion, colleagues , working conditions, and
supervision had no significant difference on the levels of job satisfaction
among science and arts teachers in secondary schools.
117
Conclusions
Important conclusions emerge as a result of the quantitative analysis made in the study. Conclusions were drawn on the basis of data analysis as mentioned in the preceding section. These conclusions are also presented in four parts.
Part I: Conclusions about the leadership styles of school Principals
1. 18% of school Principals fall in autocra tic leadership style and 82% fall in
democratic leadership style. Basis on data collection, 50% principals were
working in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. 32% principals were males and
18% were females in rural areas. 27% principals were males and 23% were
females in urban areas.
2. Principals with autocratic and democratic leadership styles did not show any
significant difference between their leadership styles.
3. Male and female principals in urban areas and male and female principals in
rural areas significantly showed a difference between their leadership styles.
4. When compared male principals in urban and rural areas no significant
difference was found. The same situation emerges when female principals
were compared in these areas.
Part II: Conclusions drawn from the impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction of secondary school teachers
Teachers who participated in the survey indicated their strong preference for overall satisfaction with principals of democratic style. Following conclusions have be en drawn on the basis of data.
1. 83% secondary school teachers were working under democratic leadership
style principals and 17% teachers under autocratic leadership style holder
heads.
118
2. Urban and rural secondary school teachers did not show noteworthy
divergence between job satisfaction levels under democratic leadership style.
3. Urban and rural science and arts secondary school teachers did not show
significant difference between levels of job satisfaction under democratic
leadership style.
4. Urban and rural male secondary school teachers showed a significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership
style. Rural teachers were more satisfied as compared to urban male teachers.
5. The results of urban and rural female teachers showed significant difference
between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Urban
female teachers were more satisfied than rural female teachers, having higher
mean value.
6. The level of job satisfaction of urban and rural male scie nce teachers did not
show any significant difference under democratic leadership style.
7. On the other hand the level of job satisfaction of urban and rural male arts
teachers showed a significant difference under democratic leadership style.
Rural teachers were more satisfied than urban teachers.
8. The results of urban and rural female science and arts teachers found no
significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic
leadership style when they were analyzed separately.
9. Consistent results were depicted among male and female science teachers
working under democratic leadership style.
10. On the other hand, male and female arts teachers showed a significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership
119
st yle. Female arts secondary school teachers were more satisfied than male
arts teachers, having higher mean value.
11. Under autocratic leadership style, urban and rural teachers exposed matching
view points about job satisfaction.
12. The science and arts teachers of urban and rural areas reflected equal levels of
job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
13. It was found that urban and rural male and female secondary school teachers
have equal level of job satisfaction when analyzed separately under autocratic
leadership style.
14. It was obvious that urban and rural male science as well as arts secondary
school teachers responded identical levels of job satisfaction under autocratic
leadership style when compared separately.
15. Urban and rural female science and arts secondary school teachers also viewed
the akin levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.
16. Male and female science secondary school teachers had no significant
difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership
style.
17. It was concluded that male and female arts secondary school teachers showed
a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic
leadership style. Female arts teachers were more satisfied than male arts
teachers, ha ving higher mean value.
18. Under both leadership styles, male and female secondary school teachers
exposed a hell of difference in job satisfaction level. Female teachers lead the
way.
120
19. Both male as well as female science and arts secondary school teachers were
consistent in their results about the levels of job satisfaction under democratic
leadership style on analyzing separately.
20. Under autocratic leadership style, it was palpable that male as well as female
science and arts teachers explored alike results towards the level of job
satisfaction when compared independently.
Part III: Conclusions related to job satisfaction of teachers with demographic variables
In this part impact of overall job satisfaction level on demographic variables is discussed on the ba sis of the results of the study. Following conclusions have been drawn.
1. It was conspicuous that male and female secondary school teachers showed a
significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction. Female secondary
school teachers were more satisfied than male secondary school teachers,
having higher mean value.
2. Teachers’ overall job satisfaction remains the same with age span. In other
words we can say that job satisfaction among male and female teachers did not
change through out their teaching career.
3. It was evident that qualification did not prove a notable aspect on overall job
satisfaction level among male and female teachers.
4. It was concluded that experience levels did not affect the job satisfaction
among male and female teachers. They did not found experience as significant
variable related to their jobs.
5. Academic work load of secondary school teachers did not alter job satisfaction
level.
121
6. It was found that number of refresher courses had not apparent effect on the
level of job satisfaction among male and female teachers.
7. Teachers’ strength and students’ enrollment in schools did not increase or
decrease the level of job satisfaction among male and female teachers in
public sector.
8. It was prominent that posting of teachers at home or out station did not play a
paramount role towards their job satisfaction levels.
9. Sources of income of secondary school teachers had a significant difference
on the levels of job satisfaction. The teachers who had only teaching pay were
more satisfied and contented than teachers who had other sources of income
on the basis of mean value .
Part IV: Conclusions related to job satisfaction of teachers with various dimensions
In this part findings about the impact of job satisfaction dimensions on gender, school location, and category of teachers have been drawn on the basis of the results of the study. Following conclusions have been drawn.
1. Pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and supervision had a
significant difference on the levels of job satisfaction among male and female
teachers. Mean value showed that female teachers were more satisfied with
these dimensions as compared to males. They feel it pleasure while working
with colleagues, working conditions of teaching, and supervisory behavior of
heads.
2. Teachers working in urban and rural areas reflected that pay, work,
promotion, colleagues, and supervision did not increase or decrease the levels
of job satisfaction. On the other hand, working conditions had a lasting effect
122
among urban and rural teachers. Urban school teachers were more satisfied
with working conditions than rural school teachers.
3. When science and arts teachers were analyzed with respect to pay, work,
promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and supervision. Their results
were more consistent.
Discussion
The study was aimed to provide broader results about the impact of leadership styles on the job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Generalizations were made on the basis of data. The following discussion of selected findings is based on the personal judgment of the researcher.
1. Democratic leadership style prevails over autocratic style. 18% of school
Principals fall in autocratic leadership style and 82% fall in democratic
leadership style. These findings supported the previous research that revealed
21% heads fall in authoritative leadership style and 79% fall in democratic
leadership style (Iqbal, 2005). The two studies have a trivial difference.
2. A worthwhile contradiction was existed on comparing leadership styles of
male and female principals in rural areas. The same situation was seen in
urban areas. When male principals in urban and rural areas were compared, no
significant difference was revealed. The same results were drawn on female
principals.
3. Educational leaders in the past emphasized autocratic leadership (Owens,
2004). Now the situation has been changed. The results of present research
supported the findings of (Daft, 2005) that democratic leadership style is
popular style of employees in most organizations.
123
4. Significant difference was found under democratic leadership style. These
findings supported the results that employees have greater job satisfaction
under democratic heads (Bass, 1990; Evans, 1998; Hackman & Johnson,
1996; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997; Smith 1998; Tasnim, 2006). Male rural
school teachers’ especially male arts teachers were more satisfied. They have
significant job satisfaction level in rural settings. This finding supports the
study of Saeed (1997). The logic behind might be due to less competitive
society, family oriented surroundings, and minimum crimes. Female teachers
in urban schools especially with working conditions were more satisfied than
rural teachers. These findings supported the results of (Hannum, 2003; Ruhl-
Smith, 1991; Tasnim, 2006) who found that urban schools have advantaged
over rural schools. It may be due to better spousal adjustment, incentives, and
gorgeous infrastructure.
5. Female teachers were more satisfied on both dimensions of leadership styles
when compared with males.
6. The current study revealed that age and job satisfaction did not show any
significant difference. These findings contradicted many studies that claimed
the existence of positive relationship (Chambers, 1999; Cramer, 1993;
Robbins, 2001; Schroder, 2008; Siu, Spector, Cooper, & Donald, 2001; Staw,
1995; Tolbert & Moen, 1998). Qualification and job satisfaction did not found
momentous liaison. The most sound reason behind is that educational policies
do not hearten teachers monetarily to augment their qualifications. This
verdict supported many studies (Iiacqua & Schumacher, 1995; Lambert, et al.,
2001; Ting, 1997). It is contrary to prior researches that highly qualified
teachers quit their jobs easily due to better alternative opportunities (Darling-
124
Hammond, 1984; Schlechty & Vance, 1983). It also gainsays many studies
that exposed positive relationship between educational level and job
satisfaction (Battu, Belfield, & Sloan, 1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000;
Niehoff, 1995; Schroder, 2008). Experience did not encourage teachers’ job
satisfaction. It is divergent to Akhtar (2000) who found positive relationship
between job satisfaction and experience. In this study academic work does not
push up teachers’ job satisfaction. It is due to the fact that teac hers ignored the
burden of work when they have entered the profession. These findings also
deny the result of (Moorhead & Griffen, 1992) who identified noteworthy
impact of work on job satisfaction. Refresher courses had no important impact
on job. This finding also contradicts the results of (Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006)
who investigated positive relationship between job training and job
satisfaction. The number of teachers and school size had no impact on job
satisfaction. Again these findings oppose the studies (Ingersoll, 2001; Lee &
Dedrick, 1991) who explored positive association between school size and job
satisfaction. Posting had no significant impact on job satisfaction levels of
teachers. It might be due to the fact that they have mentally prepared to work
any where once they have entered the profession. However, sources of income
had a significant impact on job satisfaction. Teachers who received only
teaching pay and had no other sources of income were more satisfied than
teachers who had extra jobs. It seems to be very astonishing especially in the
era of materialism but may be justified that they have exhausted too much
while teaching and remain content being relaxed.
7. Overall female teachers were more satisfied with pay, work, working
conditions, colleagues, promotion, teaching profession, and supervision than
125
males. These results supported the findings of so many researches (Aguilar &
Vlosky, 2008; Chaplain, 1995; Clark, 1997; Clecker & Loadman, 1999; Cox
& Blake, 1991; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Lambert, et al., 2001; Ma &
MacMillan, 1999; Poppleton & Riseborough, 1991; Sousa-Poza & Sousa-
Poza, 2003; Tasnim, 2006; Watson, et al., 1991). On the other hand males are
less satisfied with their pay (Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006). Women have lower
expectations to their jobs and are easily satisfied. These findings supported the
study (Witt & Nye, 1992). The study also supported the findings that teaching
offers flexible schedule for women and they spare enough time to manage
their families (Murnane, et al., 1991). Also female dominated workplaces
provide them greater job flexibility and security (Bender, et al., 2005).
8. With respect to urban and rural settings, pay, work, promotion, colleagues,
and supervision had no effect on teachers’ job satisfaction. These result s may
be justified that duo to swift progress in modern technologies the world has
become a global village and the differences have been almost diminished.
Urban teachers were more satisfied with working conditions because of more
incentives and better inf rastructure.
9. Job satisfaction dimensions have no significant impact on science and arts
teachers.
10. The study also supported the findings of (Khan, 2004) that male teachers were
generally less satisfied and they become teachers only as a last resort. These
results may be warranted on the root that males have to fulfill dual
responsibility. They attach more importance to their career and have to prop
up their families as well as maintain status quo. Unfortunately, in the present
situation, where every one is trying to make its both ends meet, the teacher is
126
especially a victim of such malicious circumstances. The study supported
many researches (Kremer-Hayton & Goldstein, 1990; Mehrotra, 2005).
Recommendations for further research
In Pakistani context, impact of leadership on job satisfaction bore fruitful results.
To broader the research results, worthwhile recommendations have been made.
Teachers in Punjab province are studied. This research should be conducted in other provinces to get nationwide consistent results both in public sector as well as private sector schools. There is a dire need to develop psychometrically sound measurement instruments that measure theoretical as well as practical aspects of leadership styles.
To give the top priority to education, this research seems timely to vitalize and inform principals’ training and professional development for futuristic vision. It is the need of the hour to train school principals to adapt most effective leadership style.
The research study may be strengthen by investigating the impact of principals’ leadership styles on students’ achievement. Also impact of teachers’ job satisfaction level on students’ achievement under heads leadership styles should be studied in the context of Pakistan so to enhance the productivity and effectiveness in public sector education.
The impact of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction should be compared in other sectors to improve employees’ performance. In this way we can get sound basis and measure by exploring the significant differences in outputs between education and business organizations.
This study identified males’ job satisfaction level under male heads and vice versa separately. Further studies may be conducted where male leaders lead female subordinates and female heads lead male subordinates to explore gender disparity.
127
References
Aguilar, F. X., & Vlosky, R. P. (2008). Gender differences in determinants of job
satisfaction among cooperative extension workers in the United Applied
Economics Letters, 1-5.States.
Akhtar, M. S. (2010). Job satisfaction and customer focus: A survey of elementary
school teachers. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co.
Ali, A. J., Azim, A. A., & Krishnan, K. S. (1995). Expatriates and host country
nationals: Managerial values and decision styles. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 16 (6), 27-34.
Al-Lamki, S. (1999). Paradigm shift: A perspective on Omani women in management
in the Sultanate of Oman. Advancing Women in Leadership. Retrieved
December 5, 2009, from http//www.advancingwomen.com/awl/spring99/al-
lamki/allamk.html
Al-Mashaan, O. (2003). Associations among job satisfaction, pessimism and
psychosomatic symptoms of employees in the government sector.
Psychological Reports, 93, 17-25.
Alt, M. N., & Peter, K. (2002). Private schools: A brief portrait. NCES 2002-013, US
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
National Center for Education Statistics. Applied Psychology, 56 (2), 95-105.
Andrew, J. D., Faubion, C. W., & Palmer, C. D. (2002). The relationship between
counselor satisfaction and extrinsic job factors in state rehabilitation agencies.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 223–233.
Arnold, N. L., Seekins, T., & Nelson, R. E. (1997). A comparison of vocational
rehabilitation counselors: Rural and urban differences. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 41, 2-14.
128
Auster, E. R. (2001) Professional women’s midcareer satisfaction: Towards an
explanatory framework. Sex Role, 44 (11/12), 719–750.
Ball, C. J., & Stenlund, V. (1990). The centrality of work, working conditions, and
job satisfaction of teachers in Canada: An Ontario study. Comparative
Education, 26(2/3), 325-326.
Barker, B. (2001). Do Leaders matter? Educational Review , 53(1), 65–76.
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is?
Human Relations, 50, 343-362.
Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1998). Management. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Bartol, K., Tein, M., Matthews, G., & Martin, D. (2003). Management. Australia:
McGraw-Hill.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research &
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Personal selling and transactional/transformational leadership.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17(3), 19–28.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Management: Competing in new era. New
York: McGraw- Hill.
Begley, T., & Czajka, J. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of
commitment on satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 552-556.
Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school
head teachers and principals on student outcomes. London: University of
London Institute of Education.
129
Bender, K. A., Donohue, S. M., & Heywood, J. S. (2005). Job satisfaction and gender
segregation. Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 479–496.
Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can’t lead? Training and Development Journal, 43,
35-39.
Bishay, A. (1996). Teacher motivation and job satisfaction: A study employing the
experienc e sampling method. Journal of Undergraduate Sciences, 3, 147-154.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1999). Well-being, insecurity and the decline
of American job satisfaction. Mimeo, Dartmouth College, USA and
University of Warwick, UK.
Blandford, S. (2000). Managing professional development in schools. London:
Routledge.
Blandford, S., & Grundy, W. (2000). Developing a culture for positive behavior
management. Emotional and Behavior Difficulties, 19 (1), 21–32.
Blank, W. R. (1993). Factors associated w ith job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
among college student affairs professional staff (Doctoral dissertation,
Northern Colorado University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International,
54, 3273.
Blase, J. (1993). The micro politics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers'
perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 142-163.
Blood, G., Ridenour, J., Thomas, E., Qualls, C., & Hammer, C. (2002). Predicting job
satisfaction among speech-language pathologists working in public schools.
Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 282-290.
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership styles on teacher job satisfaction.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662 – 683.
130
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K., & Weindling, D. (1993). Effective
management in schools: A report for the department for education via the
school management task force professional working party. London: HMSO.
Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In
M. H. Bond (Ed.). The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213-266). Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.
Bracey, G. (2002). The war against America’s public schools: Privatizing schools,
commercializing education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brkich, M., Jeffs, D., & Carless, S. A. (2002). A global self-report measure of person–
job fit. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 43–51.
Brown, D. (2005). Job satisfaction and its relationship to organizational and
religious commitment among workers at Northern Caribbean University.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
Bruce, W. M., & Blackburn, J. W. (1992). Balancing job satisfaction and
performance: A guide for human resource professionals. Westport, Conn.:
Quorum Books.
Bruno, L. F. C., & Lay, E. G. E. (in Press). Personal values and leadership
effectiveness. Journal of Business Research.
Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A
view from the elementary schools: The state of Chicago school reform.
Chicago: University of Chicago, Consortium for Chicago School Research.
Bull, I. H. F. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment amongst high school teachers in disadvantaged areas in the
Western Cape. Unpublished thesis of Magister Artium, University of the
Western Cape, Department of Industrial Psychology.
131
Burke, R. (1996). Sources of job satisfaction among employed women of a
professional services firm. Psychological Reports, 78, 1231-1234.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
But ler, B. B. (1990). Job satisfaction: Management’s continuing challenge. Social
Work , 35 (1), 112–117.
Caldwall, B. J. (1998). Strategic leadership, resource management and school reform.
Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 445-461.
Casimir, G. (2001) . Combinative aspects of leadership style: The ordering and
temporal spacing of leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 245–
278.
Chambers, J. (1999). The job satisfaction of managerial and executive women:
Revisiting the assumptions. Journal of Education for Business, 75(2), 69–74.
Chaplain, R. P. (1995). Stress and job satisfaction: A study of English primary school
teachers. Educational Psychology, 15(4), 473- 489.
Cheng, Y. C. (2002). The changing context of school leadership: Implications for
paradigm shift. In K. Leithwood & P. Halinger (eds .). Second international
handbook of educational leadership and administration. USA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Chieff o, A. M. (1991). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment of community college leadership teams. Community College
Review, 19(2), 15-25.
Chiu, C. (1998). Do professional women have lower job satisfaction than professional
men? Lawyers as a case study. Sex Roles, 38 (7/8), 521–538.
Chung, T. P., Dolton, P., & Tremayne, A. (2004). The determinants of teachers
supply: Time series evidence for the UK, 1962 -2001. Retrieved September 20,
132
2007, from http:// www.wasn.ac.UK/conomics/res2004/programme/papers
/Chung Dolton Tremayne.pdf
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work?
Labour Economics, 4, 341–372.
Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U -shaped in age?
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57-81.
Conger, J. A. (1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. Academy of
Management Executive, 33, 17-24.
Cooper, C. (1992). Management: Why women are leading the way. In M. Syrett & C.
Hogg (Eds.). Frontiers of leadership (p. 309). Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Cooper, B. S., & Conley, S. C. (1991). From blame to empowerment: Critical issues
in the teacher work environment. In Conley, S. C. & Cooper, B. S. (Eds.). The
school as a work environment: Implications for reform. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Cramer, D. (1993). Tenure, commitment, and satisfaction of college graduates in an
engineering firm. Journal of Social Psychology, 133 (6), 791-797.
Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel
about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York, NY:
Lexington.
Crossman, A., & Harris, P. (2006). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34 (1), 29-46.
Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., Judge, T., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and
organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 613-640.
Daft, R. L. (2005). Management. Singapore: Thomson Asia.
133
Danielson, C. P. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching .
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in
teaching. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Deji, O. F., & Makinde, O. T. (2006). Comparative study of the influence of
demographic and socio-economic characteristics of men and women leaders
on their leadership styles and patterns in the rural areas of Nigeria. Journal of
Comparative Social Welfare, 22 (1), 49-62.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not
steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
De Nobile, J. J., & McCormick, J. (2005). Job satisfaction and occupational stress in
Catholic primary schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, November 27th –
December 1st.
Derlin, R., & Schneider, G. T. (1994). Understanding job satisfaction: Principals and
teachers, urban and suburban. Urban Education, 29(1), 63-68.
Diaz-Serrano, L., & Cabral Vieira Jose, A. (2005). Low pay, higher pay, and job
satisfaction within the European Union: Empirical evidence from fourteen
countries. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1558, Bonn, Germany.
Dicksona, M. W., Hartog, D. N. D., & Mitchelsona, J. K. (2003). Research on
leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress and raising new
questions. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729-768.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school
executive satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 362–378.
134
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher
satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 379–396.
Dow, K. S., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings on the
relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-analysis.
Academy of Management Journal, 28, 599–612.
Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (1992). Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta_analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style
among school principals: A meta_analysis. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 28(1), 76-102.
Eastman, N. (2006). Our institutions, our selves: Rethinking classroom performance
and signification. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,
28, 297–308.
Eckman, E. W. (2004). Does gender make a difference? Voices of male and female
high school principals. Planning and Changing, 35(3&4), 192- 208.
Elliott, C. (1992). Leadership and change in schools. Issues in Educational Research,
2, 45-55.
Elpers, K., & Westhuis, D. J. (2008). Organizational leadership and its impact on
social workers' job satisfaction: A national study. Administration in Social
Work, 32 (3), 26-43.
Erpelding, C. J. (1999). School vision, teacher autonomy, school climate, and student
achievement in elementary schools. Dissertation Abstract International, 60(5),
1405. (Publication Number AAT 9930316).
135
Evans, L. (1997). Addressing problems of conceptualizations and construct validity in
researching teachers job satisfaction. Educational Research, 39(3), 319-331.
Evans, L. (1998). Teacher morale, job satisfaction, and motivation. London: Paul
Chapman.
Farber, B. A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fernandez, A. (2000). Leadership in an era of change. Breaking down the barriers of
the culture of teaching. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. E. Hauge & J. Moller
(Eds.). The life and work of teachers. International Perspectives in Changing
Times (pp. 239- 255). London: Falmer Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. (1995). Cognitive resources and leadership performance. Applied
Psychology: An International Review , 44, 5-28.
Finley, W. H. (1991). High school principal job satisfactio n. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee.
Fleisch, B., & Christi, P. (2004). Structural change, leadership, and school
effectiveness/improvement: Perspectives from South Africa. Discourse:
studies in the cultural politics of education, 25(1), 95- 112.
Fondelier, S. (1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the
teacher follow up survey: 1994–1995 .Washington, DC: US Department of
Education.
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, 676-701.
136
Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of
teacher burnout. The Journal of Educational Research, 86, 28–35.
Garcia -Bernal, J., Gargallo -Castel, A., Marzo-Navarro, M., & Rivera-Torres, P.
(2005). Job satisfaction: Empirical evidence of gender differences. Women in
Management Review, 20 (4), 279-288. Retrieved, November 15, 2007, from
www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm.
Garrett, R. M. (1999). Teacher job satisfaction in developing countries. Educational
research supplemental series (G). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 459150.
Gastil, J. (1994). A meta_analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of
democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25, 384-410.
Gazioglu, S., & Tansel, A. (2006). Job satisfaction in Britain: Individual and job
related factors. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163-1171.
Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2001). The composition of specialist schools in England:
Track record and future prospect. School Leadership & Management, 21(4),
365-381.
Graham, M. W., & Messner, P. E. (1998). Principals and job satisfaction.
International Journal of Educational Management, 12 (5), 196–202.
Green, J. (2000). Job satisfaction of community college chairpersons. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg,
VA.
Griffith, J., Steptoe, A., & Cropley, M. (1999). An investigation of coping strategies
associated with job stress in teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69, 517–531.
137
Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconceptualization of the
superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 36, 117-142.
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective
(2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling: A study of women managers in education.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
Halpin, D. (2001). Hope utopianism and educational management. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 31(1), 103-118.
Hannum, E. (2003). Poverty and basic education in rural China: Villages, households,
and girls and boys’ enrolment. Comparative Education Review, 47 (2),
141- 159.
Hanslin, J. M. (2004). Essentials of sociology: A down -to -earth approach. Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Hanson, E. M. (1996). Educational administration and organ izational behavior.
Nedham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Restructuring: Post modernity and the prospects for
educational change. Journal of Education Policy, 9, 47-65.
138
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement—leading or
misleading. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32 (1),
11-22.
Hayers, N. (2000). Leadership: Foundation of psychology. New Jersey: Thomson
Press.
Hean, S., & Garrett, R. (2001). Sources of job satisfaction in science secondary
school teachers in Chile. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education,
31(3), 363-379. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410984
Henke, R., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (2000). Progress through the teacher
pipeline: 1992– 93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school
teaching as of 1997. NCES 2000-152, US Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of
organizational behavior—leading human resources. Prentice Hall.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing
Company.
Hirase, S. K. (2000). School climate. Dissertation Abstract International, 61 (2), 439
(Publication Number AAT 9963110).
Hodgetts, R. M., & Luthans, F. (2003). International management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hodson, R. (1997). Group relations at work: Solidarity, conflict, and relations with
management. Work & Occupations, 24(4), 426-452.
139
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. CA: Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures
and implicit leadership theories across the globe. Journal of World Business,
37, 3-10.
House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on
organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. New
perspectives in International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 535-625.
Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job
satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 28 (1), 17-30.
Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2009). Exploring the link between distributed leadership and
job satisfaction of school leaders. Educational Studies, 35(2), 153-171.
Iiacqua, J. A., & Schumacher, P. (1995). Factors contributing to job satisfaction in
higher education. Education, 116, 51–62.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages. American
Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 499–534.
Iqbal, M. (2005). A comparative study of the organizational structure, leadership
style, and physical facilities of public and private secondary schools in
Punjab and their effects on school effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of the Punjab, Lahore.
Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The
effective application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13,
212–226.
140
Jennings, A. T. (2000). Hiring generation x. Journal of Accountancy, 189, 55–59.
Jiang, Y. (2005). The influencing and effective model of early childhood teachers’ job
satisfaction in China. US-China Education Review, 2(11), 65–74.
Jinnett, K., & Alexander, J. A. (1999). The influence of organizational context on
quitting intention. Research on Aging, 21 (2), 176–205.
Johnson, J. P., Livingston, M., Schwartz, R. A., & Slate, J. R. (2000). What makes a
good elementary school? A critical examination. Journal of Educational
Research, 93, 339–353.
Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a ‘‘sense of success’’: New teachers
explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40,
581–617.
Jones Johnson, G., & Johnson, W. R. (2000). Perceived over qualification and
dimensions of job satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Psychology,
34(5), 537–556.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and
problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic
meeting system environment. Personal Psychology, 50(1), 121–146.
Kanungo, R. N. (1998, spring). Leadership in organizations: Looking ahead to the 21st
century. Canadian Psychology, 39, 71–82.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high
performance organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
141
Kaur, R. (1993). Managerial style in the public sector. Indian journal of Industrial
Relations, 28(4), 363–369.
Keedy, J. L. (1993). Studying principal inner realities and their practice: Building
knowledge base. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.
Khanka, S. S. (2007). Organizational behavior: Text and cases. New Delhi: Chand
and company.
Kim, S. (2005). Gender difference in the job satisfaction of public employees: A study
of Seoul metropolitan government, Korea. Sex Roles, 52 (9/10), 667–681.
Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & King, M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in
education: Understanding trans formational leadership. Journal of Educational
Research, 85(5), 303–311.
Klassen, R. M., & Anderson, C. J. K. (2009). How times change: Secondary teachers'
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in 1962 and 2007. British Educational
Research Journal, 1–15.
Klecker, B. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1999). Male elementary school teacher’s ratings
of job satisfaction by years of teaching experience. Education, 119 (3), 504–
513.
Kloap, M., & Tarifa, F. (1994). Working conditions, work style, and job satisfaction
among Albanian teachers. International Review of Education, 40(2), 164–170.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational
leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal
of Organizational Behavio r, 16 (4), 319–333.
Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D.
Drenth, H. Thierry & C. J. de -Wolf (Eds.). Personnel psychology: Handbook
142
of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 297–324). Hove, UK:
Psycholo gy Press.
Koustelios, A. D. (2001). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek
teachers. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(7), 354–
358.
Koustelios, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2004). Multivariate relationship and discriminant
validity between job satisfaction and burnout. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 19(7), 666–675.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw -
Hill.
Kremer-Hayton, L., & Goldstein, Z. (1990). The inner world of Israeli secondary
school teachers: Work centrality, job satisfaction, and stress. Comparative
Education, 20 (2/3), 285–298.
Kunwar, F. (2001). School leadership and school effectiveness: Reflections and
research in the context of Pakistan. Lahore: Nawa Publications.
Labare e, D. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: Difficult
practices that look easy. Journal of Teacher Education , 51, 228–308.
Lad, K. (2000). Two women high school principals: The influence of gender on entry
into education and their professional lives. Journal of School Leadership, 12,
663–689.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Barton, A., & Lubbock, S. M. (2001). The impact of
job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model
using a national sample of workers. Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233–251.
Lee, K. S., & Gao, T. (2005). Studying organizational commitment with the OCQ in
the Korean retail context: Its dimensionality and relationships with satisfaction
143
and work outcomes. International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 15, 375–399.
Lee, V. E., & Dedrick, R. F. (1991, July). The effect of social organization of schools
on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190–208.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A
replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451–479.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A
replication. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from
http://www.cepa.gse.rutgers.edu/whatwe know.pdf
Lessmann, H. J., & Gigerich, R. (1990). A changed school and educational culture:
Job satisfaction and teacher satisfaction at Gesamtschulen in the state of
Hesse, West Germany-some international comparisons. Comparative
Education, 26 (2/3), 227–281.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 270–
299.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of management. New York: McGraw -Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (in press). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the teacher
follow up survey in the United States for 2000–2001. Teaching and Teacher
Education.
144
Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1960). Leader behavior and member reactions in three
social climates. In I. D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.). Group dynamics. New
York: Harper & Row.
Lockheed, M., & Jimenez, E. (1996). Public and private schools overseas: Contrasts
in organization and effectiveness. In B. Fuller & R. Elmore (Eds.). Who
chooses? Who loses? (pp. 138–153). New York: Teachers College Press.
Lucas, G. H., Babakus, E., & Ingram, T. N. (1990). An empirical test of job
satisfaction turnover relationship: Assessing the role of job performance of
retail managers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, 199–208.
Lunenberg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2004). Educational administration: Concepts
and practices. USA: Thomson Learnin g.
Luo, M. (2004). Geographic disparities of Chinese school principals’ leadership
capacities: A perspective of teachers’ perceptions. International Studies in
Educational Administration, 32 (3), 20–33.
Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Luthar, H. K. (1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership
ability: Autocratic vs. democratic managers. Sex Roles, 35, 337–360.
Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers' job
satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 93 (1), 39–47.
Macdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of the literature. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 15, 839–848.
MacLean, R. (1992). Teacher's career and promotion patterns: A sociological
analysis. London: Flamer press.
145
Mahmood, S. (1995). A study of leadership behavior and effectiveness of secondary
school heads in Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the
Punjab, Lahore.
Marks, S. (1994). Intimacy in the public realm: The ca se of co -workers. USA: Social
Forces Co.
Martinez-Ponz, M. (1990). Test of a three-factor model of teacher commitment. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the New England Educational Research
Organization, Maine. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000
019b/80/22/c5/24.pdf
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of
organizational commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 607–618.
Maynard, M. (1986). Measuring work and support network satisfaction. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 23, 9–19.
McGregor, D. (1957). Human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-hill.
McKee, J. G. (1991). Leadership styles of community college presidents and faculty
job satisfaction. Community-Junior College, 15, 33–47.
Mcshane, S. L., & Glinow, M. A. V. (2004). Organizational behavior. New York:
McGraw- Hill.
Mehrotra, A. (2005). Leadership styles of principals: Authoritarian and task oriented.
New Delhi: Mittal Publishers.
Menon, M. E., & Christou. C. (2002). Perceptions of future and current teachers on
the organization of elementary schools: A dissonance approach to the
146
investigation of job satisfaction. Educational Research, 44(1), 97–110.
Retrieved November 8, 2007, from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699076
Mercer, D. (1993). Job satisfaction and the head teacher: A nominal group approach.
School Organisation, 13(2), 153–164.
Merrill, R., & Pounder, D. (1999, November). Attraction and retention of high school
principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of
Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.
Miller, G. V. F., & Travers, C. J. (2005). Ethnicity and the experience of work: Job
stress and satisfaction of minority ethnic teachers in the UK. International
Review of Psychiatry, 17 (5), 317–327. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427280
Miller, K. (2006). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Moorhead, G. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1995). Organizational behavior. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening
in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(3), 497–508.
Moriarty, V., Edmonds, S., Blatchford, P., & Martin, C. (2001). Teaching young
children: Perceived satis faction and stress. Educational Research, 43 (1), 33–
46.
Morris, A. (2000). Charismatic leadership and its after-effects in a Catholic school.
Educational Management & Administration, 28(4), 405–418.
147
Mowday, R., & Sutton, R. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and
groups to organizational context. Annual Review of Psychology, 2, 195–229.
Mueller, C., Boyer, E., Price, J., & Iverson, R. (1994). Employee attachment and
noncoercive conditions of work: The case of dental hygienists. Work and
Occupations, 21, 179–212.
Mullins, L. (1999). Management and organizational behavior (6th ed.). London:
Pitman.
Murnane, R. J. (1987). Understanding teacher attrition. Harvard Educational Review,
57(2), 177–182.
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., Willet, J. B., K emple, J. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1991). Who
will teach? Politics that matter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Murphy, S. E., & Fiedler, F. E. (1992). Cognitive resource theory and utilization of
the leader’s and group member’s technical competence. Leadership Quarterly,
3, 237–255.
Mwamwenda, T. S. (1995). Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in
Transkei. South African Journal of Education, 15 (2), 84–86.
Nash, P. (2000). Managing stress in schools. Teacher lin. First Report: London.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s
teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and
teacher compensation. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
National Union of Teachers. (2001). Who’s leaving? Teachers’ reasons for leaving
the profession. London: National Union of Teachers.
Newsham, G., Brand, J., Donnelly, C., Veitch, J., Aries, M., & Charles, K. (2009).
Linking indoor environment conditions to job satisfaction: A field study.
Building Research & Information, 37(2), 129–147.
148
Ninomiya, A., & Okato, T. (1990). A critical analysis of job- satisfied teachers in
Japan. Comparative Education, 26 (2/3), 249–257.
Ngidi, D. P., & Sibaya P. T. (2002). Black teachers’ personality dimensions and
work-related stress factors. South African Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 7–15.
Niehoff, R. L. (1995). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and individual
and organizational mission values congruence: Investigating the relationships
(Gonzaga University doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 56, 34–74.
Ogbeide, G. A., Groves, J. L., & Cho, S. (2008). Leadership styles of foodservice managers' and subordinates' perceptions. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
& Tourism, 9(4), 317–336.
Okpara, J. (1996). An examination of the relationship of motivation needs, cultural
factors, and job satisfaction among managers in selected business enterprises
in Nigeria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New
Yor k, NY.
Okpara, J. O. (2006). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness in pay,
promotion, and job satisfaction in a sub-saharan African economy. Women in
Management Review, 21 (3), 224–240.
Omolayo, B. (2007). Effect of leadership style on job-related tension and
psychological sense of community in work organizations: A case study of four
organizations in Lagos State, Nigeria. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology,
4(2), 1–8.
Omolayo, B. O. (2004). Influence of job variables on workers’ commitment and
satisfaction in four selected Nigerian manufacturing industries. Unpublished
thesis, University of Ado-Ekiti.
149
Opeke, T. (2002, July). Women and work in Nigeria: Problems and prospects. Paper
presented at the World’s Women Congress, Department of Gender Studies and
Development, Makerere University, Uganda.
Oshagbemi, T. (1998). The impact of age on job satisfaction of university teachers.
Research in Education, 59 (1), 95– 108.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of
te aching research and administration and management? International Journal
of Sustainable Higher Education, 1(2), 124–136.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance:
An organizational level analysis. Journal of Ap plied Psychology, 77(6), 963–
974.
Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior. USA: Pearson Education.
Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (1998). What influences students to choose
the elementary education major: The case of Cyprus. Mediterranean Journal
of Educational Studies, 3(1), 35–45.
Papanastasiou, E. C., & Zembylas, M. (2005). Job satisfaction variance among public
and private kindergarten school teachers in Cyprus. International Journal of
Educational research, 43, 147–167.
Park, J. E., & Deitz, G. D. (2006). The effect of working relationship quality on
salesperson performance and job satisfaction: Adaptive selling behavior in
Korean automobile sales representatives. Journal of Business Research, 59,
204–213.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reforming the how’s and
why’s of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
150
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An
integrated approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perie, M., Baker, D., & Whitener, S. (1997). Job satisfaction among America's
teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and
teacher compensation . Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Personnel Today. (2003, January, 14). Teaching could face exodus by unhappy staff.
Personnel Today, p. 7.
Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be
both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1107–1121.
Phatak, A. V., Bhagat, R. S., & Kashlak, R. J. (2005). International management.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Philips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Poppleton, P., & Riseborough, G. (1991). A profession in transition: Educational
policy and secondary school teaching in England in the 1980s. Comparative
Education, 26 (2/3), 211–226.
Poulin, J., & Walter, C. (1993). Social workers’ burnout: A longitudinal study. Social
Work Research & Abstracts, 29 (4), 5–11.
Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. Bradford, UK: MCB
University Press.
Protheroe, N., Lewis, A., & Paik, S. (2003). Promoting teacher quality. Retrieved
December 03, 2009, from http://www.ers.org/spectrum/win02a.htm
151
Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowski, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and
measuring a power interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28, 307–332.
Redding, G., & Wong, Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational
behavior. In M. H. Bond (Ed.). The psychology of the Chinese people (pp.
267–295). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Regan, H. B., & Brooks, G. H. (1995). Out of women’s experience: Creating
relational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Reiner, M. D., & Zhao, J. (1999). The determinants of jobs satisfaction among United
States Air Force’s security police. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
19, 5–18.
Reis, H., Sheldon, K., Gable, S., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. (2000). Daily well-being: The
role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435.
Rettig, P. (2000). Leslie’s lament: How can I make teachers supervision meaningful?
Educational Horizons, 79(1), 33–37.
Riffat-un-Nisa, (2003). A study of relationship among leadership behavior of college
principals and their subordinates job satisfaction and acceptance of leader: A
path -goal approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the
Punjab, Lahore.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2003). Management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Robert, R. B., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid 111 . Houston: Gulf.
152
Robie, C., Ryan, A. M., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L. F., & Smith, P. C. (1998). The
relation between job level and job satisfaction. Group & Organization
Management, 23 (4), 470–496.
Roper Starch Worldwide. (2001). What drives employee satisfaction. Community
Banker, 10, 42–43.
Rose, M. (2000). Future tense? Are growing occupations more stressed out and
depressive? University of Bath, ESRC Working Paper 3, Work Centrality and
Careers Project: Bath.
Rosener, J. B. (1990, January–February). Ways women lead. Harvard Business
Review , 119–125.
Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a
management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.
Saeed, M. (1997). Job satisfaction among Pakistani secondary and higher secondary
school teachers in comparison to other international countries. Bulletin of
Education and Research, 2, 37–58.
Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Te’eni, D., & Schwartz, D. G.
(2002). An empirical assessment of the loose-tight leadership model:
Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
303–320.
Sahni, N. K. (2004). Management concepts and organizational behavior. New Delhi:
Kalyani Publishers.
Sari, H. (2004). An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction among Turkish special
school headteachers and teachers, and the factors effecting their burnout and
153
job satisfaction. Educational Studies, 30(3), 291–306. Retrieved November 8,
2007, from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415834
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1997). Organizational behavior.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schlechty, P., & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, selection, and retent ion: The shape
of the teaching force. The Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 468–487.
Schroder, R. (2008). Job satisfaction of employees at a Christian university. Journal
of Research on Christian Education, 17 (2), 225–246.
Schroffel, A. (1999). How does clinical supervision affect job satisfaction? The
Clinical Supervisor, 18(2), 91–105.
Schultz, H., Bagraim, J., Potgieter, T., Viedge, C., & Werner, A. (2003).
Organizational behavior: A contemporary South African perspective. Pretoria:
Van Schaik Publishers.
Schultz, I. L., & Teddlie, C. (1999). The relationship between teachers’ job
satisfaction and their perceptions of principal's use of power and school
effectiveness. Education, 19(4), 461–468.
Schwartz, D. J. (1987). The magic of getting what you want. NY: Rhema Publishing
House.
Scot, C., & Dinham, S. (2003). The development of scale to measure teacher and
school occupational satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration,
41(1), 74–86.
Scott, C., Cox, S., & Dinham, S. (1999). The occupational motivation, satisfaction
and health of English school teachers. Educational Psychology, 19 (3), 287–
308.
154
Shann, M. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban
middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 67–73.
Sharpe, R. (2000, November 20). As leaders, women rule. Business Week, 75–84.
Shelly, R. K., & Munroe, P. T. (1999, Spring). Do women engage in less task
behavior than men? Sociological Perspectives, 49–67.
Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools. The Journal of
Educational Research, 91, 81–88.
Shen, J., & Hsieh, C. (1999). Improving the professional status of teaching:
Perspectives of future teachers, current teachers, and education professors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 315–323.
Silins, H. C. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 38(4), 317–334.
Silins, H. C., & Murray-Harvey, R. (1999). What makes a good senior secondary
school? Journal of Educational Administration, 37, 329–344.
Sillitoe, W. (2003, October 31). The five-year hitch. Times Educational Supplement.
Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.tes.co.UK/your-
career/career-moves-dev-and-training.asp
Sim, W. K. (1990). Factors associated with job satisfaction and work centrality
among Singapore teachers. Comparative Education, 26(2/3), 259–275.
Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making
strategies and person– job fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 64(1), 198–221.
Siu, O., Spector, P., Cooper, C., & Donald, I. (2001). Age differences in coping and
locus of control: A study of managerial stress in Hong Kong. Psychology and
Aging, 16, 707–710.
155
Smith, B. D. (1998). Leadership: Psychology, science and understanding. Ca:
Addison-Wesley.
Smith, S. C., & Piele, P. K. (2006). School leadership: Handbook for excellence in
student learning. CA: Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.
Smith, P. J., & Cronje, G. J (1992). Management principles. A contemporary South
African edition. Kenwyn: Juta & ltd.
Smith, T. W. (2007). Job satisfaction in the United States. NORC/University of
Chicago.
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary
approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Leadership
Quarterly, 39, 1–24.
Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive
leadership on teachers performance: The intervening effects of job structuring,
design domain, and leader-member exchange. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42(5), 746–772. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://www.eaq.sagepub. com/cgi/content/abstract/42/5.746.
Sonmezer, M. G., & Eryaman, M. Y. (2008). A comparative analysis of job
satisfaction levels of public and private school teachers. Journal of Theory and
Practice in Education, 4 (2), 189–212.
Soonhee, K. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for
management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.
Sousa, D. A. (2003). The leadership brain: How to lead today’s schools more
effectively. CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000). Taking another look at the gender/job-
satisfaction paradox. Kyklos, 53, 135–152.
156
Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2003). Gender differences in job satisfac tion in
Great Britain, 1991–2000: Permanent or transitory? Applied Economics
Letters, 10, 691– 694.
Spear, M., Gould, K., & Lee, B. (2000). Who would be a teacher? A review of factors
motivating and demotivating prospective and practicing teachers. Slough:
NFER.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Starrett, R. J. (1993). Transforming life in schools: Conversations about leadership
and school renewal. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational
Administration.
Stavrides, M. (2000). Cyprus national report: Education for all 2000 assessment.
World Education Forum. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from
http://www2.unesco.org/wef/countryreports/Cyprus/rapport_1.html.
Staw, B. M. (1995). Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior. (2nd ed.).
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Stewart, G. L. (2000, August). Meta-analysis of work teams’ research published
between 1977 and 1998. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Toronto.
Steyn, G. M., & Van Wyk, J. N. (1999). Job satisfaction: Perceptions of principals
and teachers in urban black schools in South Africa. South African Journal of
Education, 19 (1), 37–43.
Stinebrickner, T. R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics
of Educational Review, 17, 127–136.
157
Sullivan, J. (1999). Leading values and casting shadows in church schools.
Unpublished paper, St. Mary’s University College, Twickenham.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (2002). Organizational behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tasnim , S. (2006). Job satisfaction among female teachers: A study on primary
schools in Bangladesh. Unpublished M. Phil. dissertation, University of
Bergen, Norway.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
turnover intension, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic
findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.
Thompson, D., & McNamara, J. (1997). Job satisfaction in educational organizations:
A synthesis of research findings. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(1),
1–31.
Thompson, D. P., McNamara, J. F., & Hoyle, J. R. (1997). Job satisfaction in
educational organizations: A synthesis of research findings. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 33, 7–37.
Thompson, C., Thompson. D. E., & Orr, B. (2003, Fall/Winter). A factor analysis of
variables affecting CTSO advisors’ satisfaction. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences Education, 21 (2), 1–9.
Tolbert, P. S., & Moen, P. (1998). Men’s and women’s definitions of good jobs. Work
& Occupations, 25 (2), 168–195.
Travers, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the
teaching profession. London: Routledge.
158
Tsourvakas, G., Zotos, Y., & Dekoulou, P. (2007). Leadership styles in the top Greek
media companies: Leading people with a mixed style. International Journal
on Media Management, 9(2), 77–86.
Tye, B. B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the
profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1), 124–132.
U.S. Army Handbook (1973). Military leadership . Retrieved September 20,
2007, from http://www.nwlink.com/donclark/leader/leadstl.html
Ubom, I. U., & Joshua, M. T. (2004). Needs satisfaction variables as predictors of job
satisfaction of employees: Implication for guidance and counseling. An On-
line Educational Research Journal, (4)3, 53–59.
Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Preferences for idealized styles of supervision. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(6), 643–671.
Watson, A., Hatton, N., Squires, D., & Soliman, I. (1991). School staffing and the
quality of education: Teacher adjustment and satisfaction. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 7, 63–77.
Weiss, E. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale,
career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 861–879.
White, A. T. (2000). My morale has fallen, and it can’t get up. The Education Digest,
65(7), 61-63.
White, R. K., & Lippit, R. (1960). Autocracy democracy: An experimental inquiry.
New York: Harper.
Whitener, S. D., Gruber, K. J., Lynch, H., Tingos, K., Perona, M., & Fondelier, S.
(1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the
159
teacher follow up survey: 1994–1995 . Washington, DC: US Department of
Education.
Wiley, S. D. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership
and professional community. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 1–33.
Wingard, M., & Patitu, C. L. (1993). Educational Administration Abstracts, 28 (4),
445.
Witt, L. A., & Nye, L. G. (1992). Gender and relationship between perceived fairness
of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77(6), 910–917.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and
student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39 (3), 398–425.
Whaley, K. W. (1994). Leadership and teachers job satisfaction. NASSP Bulletin, 78,
46–50.
Wharton, A., & Baron, J. (1991). Satisfaction? The psychological impact of sex
segregation on women at work. Th e Sociological Quarterly, 12, 365–388.
Wilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & McGrath, A.
L. (2004). Workstation characteristics and employee health and well-being:
test of a model of healthy work organization. Journal of Occu pational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 565–588.
Witt, L. A., & Nye, L. G. (1992). Gender and relationship between perceived fairness
of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77(6), 910–917.
Women in Business. (1997). Has management gone soft? Yes – and it works. Women
in Business, 49(1), 32–38.
160
Worrell, T. G. (2004). School psychologists’ job satisfaction: Ten years later.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Wu, M. Y. (2006). Compare participative leadership theories in three cultures. China
Media Research, 2(3), 19–30.
Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher -student
relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and
Personality, 30, 485–494.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2002). The interface of leadership and team processes.
Group and Organization Management, 27, 4–13.
Zaccaro, S. J., Ardison, S. D., & Orvis, K. L. (2004). Leadership in virtual teams. In
D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro & S. M. Halpin (Eds.). Leader development for
transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 267–292).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business
Review, 126–135.
Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in
Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 357–374.
Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Sources of teacher job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction in Cyprus. Compare, 36 (2), 229–247.
Zigarreli, M. A. (1996). An empirical test of conclusions from effective schools
research. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(2), 103–109.
Appendix E
Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire
Most Respected Sir / Madam,
Assalam-o-Alaikum
I am PhD scholar at I. E. R. University of the Punja b. Following information are required with humble request to trace out the leadership styles of secondary school heads. Permission is granted from DPI (SE) Punjab vide order No. 2943/Admn. 1(4), Dated 10-04-2008.
Male ? female ? Age??years Your name Qualification BA ? , B Sc ? , B Ed ? , M A? M Sc ? , M Ed ? , M Phil? , Ph D?
Exact headship experience ?? Y Monthly meetings with staff ?? Number of refresher courses attended ?? Total period spent in this school ??Y Total students in your school ???? Total teachers in your school ??? Present posting in your own town, city or village Other sources of income with salary Yes ? , No? Yes ? , No? Location of the school. Tick only one option
? Rural area (school located out side the Teh. & district Headquarter) ? Urban area (only the school located at Teh. & district Headquarter) Name of school------Signature with office stamp Keeping research confidential is a top priority of the researcher. Please respond to each item without any hesitation, reservation and consultation. Keep in mind that your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for research purpose.
Please read each statement carefully and give your option in the spaces given against each statement. Tick ‘Never’ if you do not perform the action. ‘Rarely’ if you do it a very few. ‘Off & On’ if you perform the task seldom. Similarly tick ‘Often’ if you mostly perform the task and ‘Always’ if you perform it at all times.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Yours Truly,
Asif Iqbal
Appendix F
Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers
Most Respected Sir / Madam,
Assalam-o-Alaikum
I am PhD scholar in I. E. R. University of the Punjab. Following information are required with humble request to trace out the le vel of job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Permission is granted from DPI (SE) Punjab vide order No. 2943/Admn. 1(4), Dated 10-04-2008.
Male ? female ? Age??years Your name Qualification BA ? , B Sc ? , B Ed ? , M A? M Sc ? , M Ed ? , M Phil? , Ph D?
Exact teaching experience ?? Y Total periods taught in a week ?? Number of refresher courses attended ?? Total period spent in this school ??Y Total students in your school ???? Total teachers in your school ??? Present posting in your own town, city or village Other sources of income with salary Yes ? , No? Yes ? , No? Location of the school. Tick only one option
? Rural area (school located out side the Teh. & district Headquarter) ? Urban area (only the school located at Teh. & district Headquarter) Name of school------Signature with office stamp Keeping research confidential is a top priority of the researcher. Please respond to each item without any hesitation, reservation and consultation. Keep in mind that your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for research purpose.
Here are the statements regarding the teaching profession. Please read each statement carefully and give your option in the spaces against each statement. Tick ‘SD’ if you strongly disagree to the statement. ‘D’ if you simply disagree. ‘U’ if you remain undecided. Similarly, tick ‘A’ if you agree and ‘SA’ if you strongly agree to the statement.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Yours Truly,
Asif Iqbal [email protected]
SD, strongly disagree D, disagree U, undecided A, agree SA, strongly agree
Appendix G
List of Schools (Distt Lahore)
S. No. Name of School 1 Govt. Comp. GHS Wahdat Road Lahore 2 Govt. Kinared GHS Empress Road Lahore 3 Govt. Madrisa -tul-Binnat HS Kashoopura Lahore 4 Govt. GHS Shad Bagh Lahore 5 Govt. Pak Standard GHS Shad Bagh Lahore 6 Govt. GHS Faiz Bagh Chamra Mondy Lahore 7 Govt. Model GHS Gulshan-e-Ravi Lahore 8 Govt. GHS Gulshan-e-Ravi Lahore 9 Govt. Islamia GHS Lahore Cantt. 10 Govt. GHS PAF Base Lahore 11 Govt. GHS Ranger’s Colony Lahore 12 Govt. Islamia GHS Mustafa Abad Lahore 13 Govt. GHS Ghazi Abad Lahore 14 Govt. Yasmin Islamia GHS Mughal Pura Lahore 15 Govt. Millat GHS Mughal Pura Lahore 16 Govt. Muslim GHS Dry Port Mughal Pura Lahore 17 Govt. Madrasa-tul-Binat GHS Lake Road Choburgi Lahore 18 Govt. GHS Sultan Ahmad Road Ichrra Lahore 19 Govt. Fatima GHS Mozang Lahore 20 Govt. GHSS Singh Pura Lahore 21 Govt. GHHS Barki Lahore 22 Govt. Sh. Sardar GHHS Garhi Shahu Lahore 23 Govt. GHHS Ravi Road Lahore 24 Govt. GHHS Dev Samaj Road Lahore 25 Govt. Formen GHS Shah Alam Market Lahore 26 Govt. Islamia GHS Brandreth Road Lahore 27 Govt. GHS Chuna Mondi Lahore 28 Govt. GHS Napier Road Lahore 29 Govt. Madrasa-tul-Binat GHS Misri Shah Lahore 30 Govt. Muslim HS Lahore Cantt.
31 Govt. Islamia HS Lahore Cantt. 32 Govt. Tariq HS Lahore Cantt. 33 Govt. HS Shad Bagh Lahore 34 Govt. Islah-e-Moashra HS Shad Bagh Lahore 35 Govt. Islamia HS Chah Meeran Lahore 36 Govt. Islamia HS Misri Shah Lahore 37 Govt. HS Chamra Mondi Lahore 38 Govt. Islamia HS Sheranwala Gate Lahore 39 Govt. Islamia HS Mohni Road Lahore 40 Govt. Central Model HS Retigan Road Lahore 41 Govt. Muslim HS Civil Lines Lahore 42 Govt. Muslim Model HS Urdu Bazar Lahore 43 Govt. Saint Francis HS Anar Kali Bazar Lahore 44 Govt. Muslim HS Rehman Gali Brandreth Road Lahore 45 Govt. Watan Islamia HS Brandreth Road Lahore 46 Govt. HS Mozang Lahore 47 Govt. Community HS Mozang Lahore 48 Govt. Islamia HS Khazana Gate Lahore 49 Govt. Comp. HSS Ghorey Shah Lahore 50 Govt. Pilot Secondary School Wahdat Colony Lahore 51 Govt. ND Islamia HS Ichhra Lahore 52 Govt. HS Bowly Camp Lahore Cantt. 53 Govt. Dar-ul-Furqan HS Begum Pura Lahore 54 Govt. Islamia HS Mughal Pura Lahore 55 Govt. Millat HS Mughal Pura Lahore 56 Govt. Iqbal HS Garhi Shahu Lahore 57 Govt. Arif HS Mustafa Abad Lahore 58 Govt. Muslim HS Baghban Pura Lahore 59 Govt. HS Baghban Pura Lahore 60 Govt. Pakistan Model HS Rehman Pura Lahore
List of Schools (Distt Chakwal)
S. No. Name of School 61 Govt. H/S Tehi Chakwal 62 Govt. H/S No.1 Talagang Chakwal 63 Govt. H/S Pira Fatehal Chakwal 64 Govt. H/S No.2 Chakwal 65 Govt. H/S No.1 Chakwal 66 Govt. Higher S/S Kallar Kahar Chakwal 67 Govt. H/S Khanpur Chakwal 68 Govt. H/S Hasola Chakwal 69 Govt. H/S Budhial Chakwal 70 Govt. H/S Ghazial Chakwal 71 Govt. H/S Kalis Chakwal 72 Govt. H/S Nachindi Chakwal 73 Govt. H/S Jand Chakwal 74 Govt. H/S Mulhal Mughlan Chakwal 75 Govt. H/S Shah Pur Syedian Chakwal 76 Govt. H/S Bheen Chakwal 77 Govt. Higher Secondary School Pad Shahan Chakwal 78 Govt. H/S Jasial Chakwal 79 Govt. H/S No.2 Talagang Chakwal 80 Govt. Girls H/S Nachindi Chakwal 81 Govt. Girls H/S Dhruggi Chakwal 82 Govt. Girls H/S Mulhal Mughlan Chakwal 83 Govt. Girls H/S Shah Pur Syedian Chakwal 84 Govt. Girls H/S Jand Chakwal 85 Govt. Girls H/S Kalis Chakwal 86 Govt. Higher Secondary School Saigolabad Chakwal 87 Govt. Girls H/S No.2 Chakwal 88 Govt. Girls H/S No.1 Chakwal 89 Govt. Girls H/S Jaswal Chakwal 90 Govt. Girls H/S Khanpur Chakwal 91 Govt. Girls H/S Padshahan Chakwal
92 Govt. Girls H/S Hasola Chakwal 93 Govt. Girls H/S Bheen Chakwal 94 Govt. Girls H/S Saigolabad Chakwal 95 Govt. H/S Choa Saiden Shah Chakwal 96 Govt. Girls H/S/School Choa Saiden Shah Chakw al List of Schools (Distt Sargodha)
S. No. Name of School 97 Govt. H/S Sultanabad Sargodha 98 Govt. Khaliqia H/S Sargodha 99 Govt. H/S No. 2 Sargodha 100 Govt. Model H/S No. 1 Sargodha 101 Govt. H/S Chak No. 47 N.B. Sargodha 102 Govt. M.C. H/S Satellite Town Sargodha 103 Govt. Comprehensive H/S Sargodha 104 Govt. Jamia Qasim-ul-uloom H/S Sargodha 105 Govt. H/S Chak No. 71 S.B. Sargodha 106 Govt. Islamia H/S Chak No. 29 S.B. Sargodha 107 Govt. H/S Mateela Sargodha 108 Govt. H/S Chak No. 75 S.B. Sargodha 109 Govt. Higher S/S Chak No. 40 S.B. Sargodha 110 Govt. Higher S/S Bhagtanwala Sargodha 111 Govt. H/S Tangowali Sargodha 112 Govt. H/S Chokera Sargodha 113 Govt. H/S Chak No. 54 S.B. Sargodha 114 Govt. Ambala Muslim H/S Sargodha 115 Govt. Central Model School Sargodha 116 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 27 S.B. Sargodha 117 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 75 S.B. Sargodha 118 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Chak No. 29 S.B. Sargodha 119 Govt. Girls Junior Model School Sargodha 120 Govt. M.C. girls H/S Satellite Town Sargodha 121 Govt. Ferogh-e-Taleem Girls H/S Sargodha 122 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Block No. 2 Sargodha
123 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Block No. 26/27 (1st shift) Sargodha 124 Govt. National Girls H/S PAF Base Sargodha 125 Govt. Z. M. Girls H/S Sargodha 126 Govt. Girls Pilot Secondary School Sargodha 127 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 54 S.B. Sargodha 128 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 81 S.B. Sargodha 129 Govt. Comprehensive Girls H/S Sargodha List of Schools (Distt Gujranwala)
S. No. Name of School 130 Govt. H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala 131 Govt. H/S Nizamabad Gujranwala
132 Govt. H/S Chak Baig Gujranwala
133 Govt. H/S Dhaunkal Gujranwala 134 Govt. Public H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala
135 Govt. Christian H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala 136 Govt. H/S Sohdra Gujranwala 137 Govt. H/S Manzoorabad Gujranwala
138 Govt. H/S Bharoke Cheema Gujranwala 139 Govt. Girls H/S Dhaunkal Gujranwala
140 Govt. S.K. Girls H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala 141 Govt. M.C. Girls H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala 142 Govt. Girls H/S Nizamabad Gujranwala
143 Govt. P. B. Model H/S Gujranwala 144 Govt. Islamia H/S No.2 Eminabad Gujranwala
145 Govt. H/S Kamoke Gujranwala 146 Govt. H/S Manchar Chatha Gujranwala 147 Govt. H/S Jaura Sian Gujranwala
148 Govt. H/S Dhillanwali Gujranwala 149 Govt. H/S Ali pur Chatha Gujranwala
150 Govt. H/S Rasul Nagar Gujranwala
151 Govt. Shaqafat-ul-Banat H/S Gujranwala 152 Govt. Mission Girls H/S Gujranwala
153 Govt. Tehzib-ul-Banat Girls H/S Gujranwala 154 Govt. Gulzar-e-Islam Girls H/S Gujranwala
155 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Rasul Nagar Gujranwala 156 Govt. Girls H/S Jaura Sian Gujranwala 157 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Ghakhar Gujranwala
158 Govt. Girls H/S Ali Pur Chatha Gujranwala 159 Govt. Higher S/S G. T. Road Gujranwala
160 Govt. M. A. Islamia H/S Gujranwala
161 Govt. A. M. Islamia H/S No.1 Gujranwala 162 Govt. Jinnah Memorial Muslim H/S Gujranwala
163 Govt. H/S Ahmad Nagar Gujranwala 164 Govt. Girls H/S Rahwali Gujranwala
165 Govt. Gils H/S Garjakh Gujranwala 166 Govt. Higher Secondary School Gakhar Gujranwala 167 Govt. H/S Qila Mian Singh Gujranwala
168 Govt. Comprehensive School Gujranwala 169 Govt. H/S Aroop Gujranwala 170 Govt. H/S Rahwali Gujranwala
171 Govt. F. D. Model H/S Model Town Gujranwala 172 Govt. H/S No. 1 Gakhar Gujranwala
List of Schools (Distt. Dera Ghazi Khan)
S. No. Name of School 173 Govt. Comprehensive H/S D. G. Khan
174 Govt. Boys H/S No.2 D. G. Khan 175 Govt. City H/S D. G. Khan
176 Govt. H/S Samina D. G. Khan 177 Govt. H/ S Sokar D. G. Khan
178 Govt. H/S Douna (Tounsa) D. G. Khan 179 Govt. Higher S/S Shadan Lund D. G. Khan
180 Govt. H/S Sarwarwali D. G. Khan 181 Govt. H/S Ahmdani D. G. Khan
182 Govt. Girls H/S Sarwarwali D. G. Khan 183 Govt. Girls H/S Mana Ahmdani D. G. Khan 184 Govt. Girls H/S Jhoke Uttra D. G. Khan
185 Govt. Girls H/S Gumraty D. G. Khan 186 Govt. Girls H/S Choti Zirin D. G. Khan
187 Govt. Girls H/S Langrotha Sharqui D. G. Khan
188 Govt. Girls H/S Mulla Quaid Shah D. G. Khan 189 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Tounsa D. G. Khan
190 Govt. Girls H/S Sokar D. G. Khan 191 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Vnewa D. G. Khan
192 Govt. Girls H/S Shadan Lund D. G. Khan 193 Govt. H/S Mian Phero D. G. Khan 194 Govt. H/S Kot D. G. Khan
195 Govt. H/S No. 1 D. G. Khan 196 Govt. H/S Pir Adil Jadeed D. G. Khan 197 Govt. H/S Gumraty D. G. Khan
198 Govt. H/S Tamachiwala D. G. Khan 199 Govt. H/S Mana Ahmdani D. G. Khan
200 Govt. H/S Ghoas Abad D. G. Khan
List of Schools (Distt. Faisal Abad) S. No. Name of School 201 Govt. M. C. H/S Samanabad Faisal Abad 202 Govt. L. C. M. Model H/S Faisal Abad
203 Govt. Crescent Model H/S Faisal Abad 204 Govt. Jamia Chishtia H/S Faisal Abad
205 Govt. Islamia H/S Jinnah Colony Faisal Abad 206 Govt. Comprehensive Model H/S Faisal Abad
207 Govt. Islami Madrassa H/S Muhammad pura Faisal Abad 208 Govt. A. V. Modern H/S Faisal Abad
209 Govt. M. C. H/S 224/RB Faisal Abad 210 Govt. Higher S/S Dijkot Faisal Abad 211 Govt. Iqbal H/S 267/RB Faisal Abad
212 Govt. H/S 49/JB Faisal Abad 213 Govt. H/S 118/GB Faisal Abad
214 Govt. H/S 275/RB Faisal Abad
215 Govt. Agro Tech. H/S 226/RB Faisal Abad 216 Govt. H/S 236/RB Faisal Abad
217 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Mansoorabad Faisal Abad 218 Govt. Girls H/S Gulistan Colony Faisal Abad
219 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Hajiabad Faisal Abad 220 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Islam Nagar No.1 Faisal Abad 221 Govt. Girls H/S 527/GB Faisal Abad
222 Govt. Girls H/S 203/RB Manawala Faisal Abad 223 Govt. Girls H/S 198/RB Faisal Abad 224 Govt. Girls H/S 85/JB Faisal Abad
225 Govt. Girls H/S 257/RB Faisal Abad 226 Govt. Girls Higher S/S 267/RB Faisal Abad
227 Govt. M. C. Girls Higher S/S Samanabad Faisal Abad 228 Govt. Girls H/S 84/JB Faisal Abad 229 Govt. Girls Higher S/S 30/JB Faisal Abad
230 Govt. Girls H/S 192/ GB Faisal Abad 231 Govt. Girls H/S 197/ GB Faisal Abad
232 Govt. Girls H/S 467/JB Faisal Abad 233 Govt. H/S 198/ GB Faisal Abad
234 Govt. Qadria Sirajia H/S 30/JB Faisal Abad 235 Govt. H/S 257/RB Faisal Abad
236 Govt. H/S 84/JB Faisal Abad 237 Govt. Tariq Islamia H/S 254/RB Faisal Abad
List of Schools (Distt. Sahiwal)
S. No. Name of School 238 Govt. H/S 78/5-R Sahiwal
239 Govt. H/S 100/A-6-R Sahiwal 240 Govt. Batala Muslim H/S Sahiwal
241 Govt. H/S 95/9-L Sahiwal
242 Govt. H/S 82/6-R Sahiwal 243 Govt. H/S 118/9-L Sahiwal
244 Govt. H/S 5/11-L Sahiwal 245 Govt. H/S 75/5-R Sahiwal
246 Govt. H/S 111/9-L Sahiwal 247 Govt. H/S 101/9-L Sahiwal 248 Govt. H/S Nungal Ambia No. 2 Sahiwal
249 Govt. H/S Sahiwal 250 Govt. H/S 78/5-L Sahiwal 251 Govt. H/S 134/9-L Sahiwal
252 Govt. H/S 87/6-R Sahiwal 253 Govt. H/S Urban Area Sahiwal
254 Govt. H/S Kot Deramal Sahiwal 255 Govt. H/S 64/4-R Sahiwal 256 Govt. Girls M. P. Secondary School Sahiwal
257 Govt. Girls M. C. City H/S Sahiwal 258 Govt. Girls Model Pilot School Sahiwal
259 Govt. Girls H/S Sahiwal 260 Govt. Girls H/S 8/11-L Sahiwal
261 Govt. Girls H/S 5/11-L Sahiwal 262 Govt. Girls H/S 115/12-L Sahiwal
263 Govt. Girls H/S 92/12-L Sahiwal 264 Govt. Girls H/S 9/14-L Sahiwal
265 Govt. Girls H/S 98/12-L Sahiwal 266 Govt. Girls H/S 39/12-L Sa hiwal 267 Govt. H/S Chichawatani City Sahiwal
268 Govt. H/S 59/ GD Sahiwal 269 Govt. H/S 89/6-R Sahiwal
270 Govt. Nangal Ambia H/S No. 1 Sahiwal
List of Schools (Distt. Bahawalpur) S. No. Name of School 271 Govt. Fazil H/S Ahmadpur East Bahawalpur 272 Govt. Higher S/S Lal Sohanra Bahawalpur
273 Govt. H/S 45/ DB Bahawalpur 274 Govt. H/S 117/ DB Bahawalpur 275 Govt. Higher S/S 36/ DNB Bahawalpur
276 Govt. H/S 41/ DB Bahawalpur 277 Govt. H/S Jamalpur Bahawalpur 278 Govt. H/S 19/ DNB Bahawalpur
279 Govt. H/S Khanqah Sharif Bahawalpur 280 Govt. H/S Fattowali Bahawalpur
281 Govt. Fazil H/S Khairpur Tamewali Bahawalpur 282 Govt. H/S 44/ DNB Bahawalpur 283 Govt. H/S Jheelanwali Bahawalpur
284 Govt. Girls H/S 42/ DB Bahawalpur 285 Govt. Girls H/S Dera Nawab Sahib Bahawalpur
286 Govt. Girls H/S 41/ DB Bahawalpur 287 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Chaha Fathe Khan Bahawalpur
288 Govt. Girls H/S 36/ DNB Bahawalpur 289 Govt. Girls H/S 88/ DB Bahawalpur
290 Govt. Girls H/S Model Ahmadpur East Bahawalpur 291 Govt. Girls H/S Yazman Bahawalpur
292 Govt. Girls H/S Hasilpur Mandi Bahawalpur 293 Govt. Girls H/S Mahajir Colony Bahawalpur 294 Govt. Girls H/S Comprehensive Bahawalpur
295 Govt. Girls H/S 13/ BC Bahawalpur 296 Govt. Girls H/S Qaimpur Bahawalpur
297 Govt. Girls H/S 58/ F Bahawalpur
298 Govt. Girls H/S Community Bahawalpur 299 Govt. H/S Cantt. Bahawalpur
300 Govt. H/S Yazman Bahawalpur
List of Schools (Miscellaneous)
S. No. Name of School 301 Govt. Iqbal H/S G. T. Road Gujranwala 302 Govt. H/S Gujranwala
303 Govt. Public H/S Gujranwala 304 Govt. H/S Abdal Gujranwala 305 Govt. Model H/S Gujranwala
306 Govt. Aligarh English Girls H/S Gujranwala 307 Govt. Girls Model H/S Satellite Town Gujranwala
308 Govt. comprehensive H/S No. 2 Sahiwal 309 Govt. H/S 97/6-R Sahiwal 310 Govt. H/S 56/G-D Sahiwal
Appendix H
From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Humble Request Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:46:15 +0500
Dr. Anju Mehrotra
IGNOU PSC, Programme Incharge,
Kalka Institute for Research and Advanced Studies, Alaknanda,
New Delhi.
Subject: Kind Permission for the use of Research Instrument
Most Respected Madam,
Hope you are enjoying good health and job. Having come to know through your dissertation that you have conducted a research on leadership styles of principals. I congratulate you on successful completion of your doctoral degree.
Respected madam, I am Mr. Asif Iqbal a Ph.D. scholar in Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. I am also working on leadership styles. The title of my dissertation is ‘A Comparative Study of the Impact of Principals’ Leadership S tyles on Job Satisfaction of Teachers’.
I need an instrument about job satisfaction. Your research instrument of job satisfaction scale for teachers I have studied is most appropriate tool for my research. I therefore humbly request you to allow and send me your (JSST) so that I may complete my doctoral degree.
Thank you in anticipation.
Yours Truly,
Asif Iqbal Ph.D. Scholar IER,
University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
[email protected] #03214365280
May 25, 2009.
Appendix I
Re: Humble Request From: anju mehrotra ([email protected]) Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:41:12 AM To: asif iqbal ([email protected]) Mr. Asif, This is to grant you the permission to use my tool on Job Satisfaction. I wish you all the very best for your Ph.D. May you get success in your endeavour. If you wish to have the item wise distribution of statements in questionnaire, I can send it again.
BEST OF LUCK DR. ANJU
--- On Sun, 24/5/09, asif iqbal
From: asif iqbal