Oalib2024 11null - 1111796
Oalib2024 11null - 1111796
Subject Areas
Psychology
Keywords
Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Employee Motivation, Employee
Satisfaction, Non-Academic Staff
1. Introduction
Public institutions are established to offer services to the general public. They
have a crucial function in providing public services. They must efficiently ad-
dress the rise in demand in order to deliver high-quality services to the public.
Public sector leaders have the challenge of enhancing service delivery while
dealing with limited budgetary resources. The significance of proficient leader-
ship is not a recent occurrence. Studies have indicated that experts in the field of
public administration have acknowledged the significance of leadership in en-
hancing the functioning of public institutions [1]-[3]. Leadership is an essential
element in achieving the objectives of an organisation. Studies indicate that the
most suitable leadership theory should be implemented in accordance with the
prevailing culture [4].
Leadership theories have undergone changes over time, and experts in the
field have reached a consensus that there is no universally accepted definition
for leadership [5]. Sun and Henderson [6] argue that successful leadership is
associated with enhanced efficiency, superior quality goods, and improved pub-
lic sector services. Studies have demonstrated that leadership style and motiva-
tion exert a significant impact on fostering beneficial outcomes inside organisa-
tions [7]. Nevertheless, leaders in the public sector still have difficulties imple-
menting the most efficient leadership style and finding ways to inspire their
workforce. The definition of leadership in the public sector is not well delineated
due to its reliance on a specific political system and diverse management prac-
tices [8].
Research indicates that good leadership has a positive impact on staff en-
gagement and happiness, leading to improved performance outcomes. Accord-
ing to Jensen [3], leadership is seen as a crucial element in public institutions for
fostering happiness and motivation in order to collaboratively accomplish the
organisation’s mission, vision, and goals. Understanding how public administra-
tion leadership may effectively enhance overall organisational outcomes and
meet stakeholders’ expectations is of utmost importance. Nevertheless, the ex-
isting body of research is insufficient to definitively recommend a certain lea-
dership style that can enhance performance or guarantee high-quality education.
In order to fill this need, the University of Ibadan, the leading university in Ni-
geria, conducted a study to examine the impact of a specific leadership style
(transformational leadership) on the motivation and satisfaction levels of
non-academic staff members at the University of Ibadan.
All organisations, including public universities, exist to achieve a set vision,
2. Method
2.1. Research Design
The study adopted a cross-sectional survey research design. The variables inves-
tigated were transformational leadership style (an independent variable), job sa-
tisfaction (a dependent variable), and motivation (a dependent variable). Other
variables were demographic factors: age, gender, level of education, years in em-
ployment, and average monthly income.
2.2. Population
The target population for the study was University of Ibadan employees. This
includes executive administrative staff and core administrative staff. There are a
total of five hundred and seventy (570) administrative staff (499 executive ad-
ministrative staff and 71 core administrative staff) (See Table 1).
2.4. Instruments
A single paper and pencil questionnaire was adopted for data collection in this
study. The structured questionnaire will be divided into four sections, which are
as follows:
Section A: Demographic Variable
This is the first section of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of
the following demographic information: age, gender, educational qualification,
and work experience.
Section B: Job Satisfaction Scale
This section comprises the job satisfaction scale developed by Nanjundeswa-
raswamy [31]. The scale measures the extent to which employees are satisfied
with their job in the following domains: satisfaction with working conditions,
work environment, and co-workers. Specific dimensions in the scale are as fol-
lows: organisational culture, job clarity, participative management, job security,
work-life balance, teamwork, work stress, career advancement opportunities,
training and development, communication, relations and cooperation at work,
leadership styles, benefits, welfare facilities, and training and development. This
study did not consider these dimensions; however, it adapted 15 items to suit the
purpose of the study. Response format to the scale items ranged as follows: SD:
strongly disagree (1), D: disagree (2), U: undecided (3), A: agree (4), and SA:
strongly agree (5). The scale developer reported an internal consistency that
ranged between 0.773 and 0.986.
Section C: Employee Motivation Scale
This section measures motivation using a scale developed by Nawab et al.
[32]. Related items will be selected to measure motivation (7 items). Response to
the items ranged between SD (strongly disagree), SLD (slightly disagree), D
(disagree), A (agree), SLA (slightly agree), and SA (strongly agree). The scale
developers reported an internal consistency of (α = 0.70).
Section D: Transformational Leadership Scale
This section is comprised of a 26-item scale developed by Chaoping and Kan
[33]. The scale was developed to measure the extent to which employees perceive
that a transformational leadership style is utilised. Response to the items ranged
between SD (strongly disagree), SLD (slightly disagree), D (disagree), A (agree),
SLA (slightly agree), and SA (strongly agree). The scale developers reported an
internal consistency of 0.834.
2.5. Procedure
The researcher sought permission to conduct the study by writing a letter to the
school registrar. An ethical approval was obtained from the Oyo State Ministry
of Health ethics committee, with reference number AD/13/479/466B. Prior to
the administration of questionnaire copies, the respondents were informed of
the exercise and the main objectives of the study. Participants were selected for
the research using the cross-sectional survey research design. An author sam-
pling technique was adopted to recruit participants for the study. About two
hundred and seventy (270) questionnaires were administered; at each adminis-
tration, the consent of the respondent was informed, coupled with proper in-
formation, and the purpose of the study and their queries were addressed. How-
ever, only 231 were recovered and utilised for data analysis, yielding a response
index of 86%. The names and personal details of the respondents were not in-
cluded in the questionnaire in an attempt to ensure the anonymity and confi-
dentiality of their responses. Each section of the questionnaire was in Likert
point format, except for a few questions among demographic variables (some of
which will be the open end). The filled questionnaires were retrieved at their
completion for analysis.
3. Result
This chapter presents results based on gathered data from two hundred and
thirty-one (231) University of Ibadan administrative staff. This includes con-
tract, casual, and permanent staff. Although two hundred and seventy (270)
questionnaires were distributed, only two hundred and thirty-one (231) were re-
trieved and utilised for data analysis.
According to years spent on the job, more of the respondents 98 (42.4%) have
between 6 and 10 years of work experience, 52 (22.5%) have between 0 and 5
years of work experience, 41 (17.7%) were between 11-15 years of work expe-
rience, 18 (7.8%) have between 16 and 20 years of work experience, while the
other 22 (9.5%) have 21 years and above work experience.
Table 3 presents results on the descriptive distribution of respondents on
their level of job satisfaction and motivation. With a mean score of 51.77 (SD =
8.41), more of the non-academic staff (58%) reported a high level of satisfaction.
Also, with a mean score of 26.31 (SD = 2.66), more of the non-academic staff
(67.5%) reported a high level of motivation.
Frequency
Variable Levels % Mean SD
(n = 231)
Low 97 42 51.77 8.41
Job satisfaction
High 134 58
Low 75 32.5
Employee motivation
High 156 67.5 26.31 2.66
Table 4. Pearson r correlation summary table showing results on the relationship be-
tween transformational leadership style and job satisfaction.
Variable Mean SD r df p
Job satisfaction 41.23 13.32
0.56 230 <0.01
Transformational leadership 68.42 16.98
Table 5. Pearson r correlation summary table showing results on the relationship be-
tween transformational leadership style and motivation.
Variable Mean SD r df p
Motivation 19.87 5.87
.38 230 < .01
Transformational leadership 68.42 16.98
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Andersen, L.B., Heinesen, E. and Pedersen, L.H. (2014) How Does Public Service
Motivation among Teachers Affect Student Performance in Schools? Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 651-671.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut082
[2] Bellé, N. (2013) Leading to Make a Difference: A Field Experiment on the Perfor-
mance Effects of Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public
Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24,
109-136. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut033
[3] Jensen, U.T., Andersen, L.B. and Jacobsen, C.B. (2018) Only When We Agree! How
Value Congruence Moderates the Impact of Goal‐Oriented Leadership on Public
Service Motivation. Public Administration Review, 79, 12-24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13008
[4] Van Wart, M. (2013) Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary
Challenges of Leaders. Public Administration Review, 73, 553-565.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12069
[5] Northouse, P.G. (2019) Leadership: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.
[6] Sun, R. and Henderson, A.C. (2016) Transformational Leadership and Organiza-
tional Processes: Influencing Public Performance. Public Administration Review,
77, 554-565. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12654
[7] Andersen, L.B., Bjørnholt, B., Bro, L.L. and Holm-Petersen, C. (2016) Leadership
and Motivation: A Qualitative Study of Transformational Leadership and Public
Service Motivation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84, 675-691.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316654747
[8] Vandenabeele, W., Andersen, L.B. and Leisink, P. (2013) Leadership in the Public
Sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34, 79-83.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x13511160
[9] Awada, N. (2019) The Effect of Employee Happiness on Performance of Employees
in Public Organization in United Arab Emirates. Journal of Administrative and
Business Studies, 5, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-5.5.1
[10] Saif, S., Nawaz, A. and Jan, F. (2012) Predicting Job-Satisfaction among the Acade-
micians of Universities in Kpk, Pakistan. Industrial Engineering Letters, 2, 34-45.
[11] Fashola, T.M. and Rowland-Aturu, A. (2023) COVID-19 Pandemic and Employee
Job Satisfaction: Case Study of Mental Healthcare Frontliners. International Journal
of Economics, Commerce & Management, 11, 256-268.
[12] Yoon, D. (2020) The Job Satisfaction Level Analysis for the Research Environment
and the Research Production. Cogent Business & Management, 7, Article 1818364.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1818364
[13] Hauff, S., Richter, N.F. and Tressin, T. (2015) Situational Job Characteristics and
Job Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of National Culture. International Business
Review, 24, 710-723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.01.003
[14] Jalagat, R. and Aquino, P. (2021) Common Perceived Predictors of Job Satisfaction
among Filipino Workers in Vietnam. Management Research and Practice, 13,
58-68.
[15] Ong, C.H., Shi, C.H., Kowang, T.O., Fei, G.C. and Ping, L.L. (2020) Factors Influen-
cing Job Satisfaction among Academic Staffs. International Journal of Evaluation
and Research in Education (IJERE), 9, 285-291.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i2.20509
[16] Meirinhos, G., Cardoso, A., Neves, M., Silva, R. and Rêgo, R. (2023) Leadership
Styles, Motivation, Communication and Reward Systems in Business Performance.
Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16, Article 70.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020070
[17] Memon, A.H., Khahro, S.H., Memon, N.A., Memon, Z.A. and Mustafa, A. (2023)
Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance in the Construc-
tion Industry of Pakistan. Sustainability, 15, Article 8699.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118699
[18] Shahzad, K., Khan, S.A., Iqbal, A. and Shabbir, O. (2023) Effects of Motivational
and Behavioral Factors on Job Productivity: An Empirical Investigation from Aca-
demic Librarians in Pakistan. Behavioral Sciences, 13, Article 41.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010041
[19] Cheng, J., Li, K. and Cao, T. (2023) How Transformational Leaders Promote Em-
ployees’ Feedback-Seeking Behaviors: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation and Its
Boundary Conditions. Sustainability, 15, Article 15713.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215713
[20] Vinh, N.Q., Hien, L.M. and Do, Q.H. (2022) The Relationship between Transfor-
mation Leadership, Job Satisfaction and Employee Motivation in the Tourism In-
dustry. Administrative Sciences, 12, Article 161.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040161
[21] Kim, J., Yang, J. and Lee, Y. (2023) The Impact of Transformational Leadership on
Service Employees in the Hotel Industry. Behavioral Sciences, 13, Article 731.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090731
[22] Karimi, S., Ahmadi Malek, F., Yaghoubi Farani, A. and Liobikienė, G. (2023) The