Journal of Management Research

ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

Assessing the Relationship Between Leadership Styles

and Job Satisfaction
Sean Ratican
Assistant Professor, Business Management
Kent State University
4314 Mahoning Avenue NW, Warren, OH USA 44483
E-mail: sratican@kent.edu

Received: April 6, 2020 Accepted: May 10, 2020 Published: July 1, 2020
doi:10.5296/jmr.v12i3.16912 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v12i3.16912

Abstract
The United States workforce is in a period of transition. In April 2020, more than 20 million
U.S. workers were out of work. As the economy seeks to reboot, organizations will have to
prioritize how they rebuild their workforces. Prior to the global pandemic, there was nearly
unprecedented low unemployment within the United States. Firms were constantly seeking
ways to stabilize turnover within their organizations to achieve a competitive advantage. This
research was conducted to analyze the impact leadership style has on employee job
satisfaction. Surveys were collected to determine if there were significant differences in the
perceived leadership styles within the industry, a relationship between leadership and job
satisfaction, and identify a monetary threshold for which employees would quit. A hybrid of
the Vannsimpco Leadership Survey (VLS) and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)
was administered to the 92 survey respondents. A single factor, one-way ANOVA was
conducted to analyze the participants’ responses to the survey. The ANOVA calculations
revealed a significant difference among the nine leadership styles (F [8, 819] = 12.36, p
< .001). A Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test was used to test for
significance between the means and found significance in 14 of the 36 pairs.
Keywords: Job Satisfaction, Leadership, Transactional Relationships, Organizational
Behavior, Transformational

1 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

Introduction
The United States workforce is in a period of transition. With more than 20 million U.S.
workers having filed for unemployment as of mid-April 2020 according to the US
Department of Labor, organizations will have to prioritize how they rebuild their workforces.
Employees are a vital resource for most organizations. The performance and efficiency of the
employees as a whole can often dictate the level of success a company has within the
competitiveness of the private sector. As a valued resource, the retention of employees is
paramount. As organizations begin to recall workers in the coming months, the identification
of talented workers can be essential. To achieve a competitive advantage through the
reconstruction of a talented workforce, it is necessary to create an environment of leadership
conducive to the attraction, and long-term retention, of valued employees.
Constant turnover within an organization can lead to instability and wasted resources.
Training new employees can be costly, and they may be inefficient as they acclimate within
the current organizational structure. Companies that thrive in the competitive markets of the
private sector do so by relying on competent, efficient employees that produce tangible
results in a competitive environment. The loss of these employees can be damaging to a
company’s ability to compete with other organizations within their industry. Voluntary
turnover within an organization can disrupt productivity outcomes, undermine strategic
advantages in technology, hinder an organization’s culture, and ultimately significantly
impact financial performance (Hom, Shaw, Lee, & Hausknecht, 2017).
Before the global COVID-19 pandemic, organizations across all sectors had fierce
competition for employees. In the last month of 2019, the United States unemployment rate
was 3.5 percent (US Department of Labor, 2020), which signified the lowest percentage in
nearly half a century. The excess of available of jobs, and the limitations of a labor market to
fill vacancies, causes high turnover as companies compete for talented employees.
Historically, employee turnover in the 21st Century has cost U.S. companies more than $25
billion annually, “with the cost of hiring and training an hourly worker at 300 to 700 times the
worker’s hourly wage” (McKeown, 2010, p. 22). To staunch the ongoing cost of recruiting
and training talented employees, companies can look to improve their retention of skilled and
valued employees through the deployment of effective leadership.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2020), before the Covid-19 impact
caused transition in the workplace, as of February 2020 more than three million workers in
the United States had left their jobs voluntarily every month since June 2017. Heading into
the first quarter of 2020, the trend was not limited to one specific industry, instead it is
indicative of a shift throughout the nationwide workforce. However, typically traditional
turnover rates by industry standards omit the reason employees voluntarily leave (Park &
Shaw, 2013). These data are also not indicative of a shrinking labor market. The reality is in
fact the opposite, “in which high volumes of hires and separations largely offset each other,
and net total employment increases more slowly” (ODJFS, 2018, p. 15). Employees who
voluntarily leave current employment do so because they are not engaged or enthusiastic
about their jobs (Harter & Adkins, 2015).

2 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

The issue of leadership as an effective means to reduce voluntary turnover received sparse
attention in recent literature as compared to the wide coverage of general leadership theories
(Waldman, Carter, & Hom, 2015). Context is critical and understanding the motivations for
employees who willingly seek alternative employment is vital to addressing the issue of how
to retain valuable members of an organization’s workforce. Leadership is predominantly a
social endeavor that can be especially impactful in that “leaders, particularly charismatic ones,
are highly influential and affect organizational outcomes” (Jacquart, & Antonakis, 2015, p.
1052). Effective leadership is often based on positive relationships between managers and
employees (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).
By identifying the leadership styles most commonly associated with increased organizational
commitment and associated with positive job satisfaction, this research sought to establish
contextual parameters for effective employee retention. Understanding the paradigm of
employee retention and examining the trends in which employees leave current employment
is vital to organizational success. There is a need to identify the reasons why employees quit.
Understanding these motivations can be critical to an organization’s success in developing a
stable workforce. Identifying the correlations between leadership style, positive relationships,
and job satisfaction can help organizations address the issue of curbing voluntary turnover for
talented employees. Identifying the construct of these relationships based on social
interaction can also help organizations understand how leadership can have both positive and
negative effects on the job satisfaction of valued employees. Voluntary turnover within a
workforce can be costly for an organization, both in terms of financial losses and workplace
morale. To avoid the monetary and cultural cost of a revolving workforce, it is imperative to
identify how leadership can impact job satisfaction.
Purpose of the Study
The current study was conducted to discover the preferred leadership styles of economic
development professionals. There is extensive research on the broad subject of job
satisfaction, general employee retention programs, and employee turnover. However, there
exists a limited amount of research that has been identified to narrow the scope of retention
efforts by determining the impact leadership style has on job satisfaction within the economic
development profession. Results of this study can be used to advance the industry’s
knowledge in regard to the specific impact leaders within the workplace have on the
satisfaction of valued employees. An analysis of the data gathered sought to identify the
perceived leadership style of the respondents and attempted to identify a relationship between
leadership style and increased job satisfaction. The study can also be used to assist
organizations that seek to develop attraction and retention programs for valued employees.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the national job market in the United States had created a
surplus of available jobs within nearly every industry. Because the growth of the national
workforce had not kept pace with the expanding job market, the competition for quality
employees is significant. Employers continue to seek and retain good employees. In order to
accomplish this, organizations need to concentrate on the aspects of employment that appeal
to their perspective employees. Job satisfaction has a relative impact on employee

3 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

performance, the more content an employee is the more productive they can be. The overall
objective of this study was to identify perceptions of leadership styles that can influence job
satisfaction, and thus have an impact on the employees’ performance.
The landscape of the modern workforce is constantly changing. Employees are an
organization’s most valuable resource. The desires of competent employees often expand
beyond the simple benchmark of financial compensation. Often, the organization’s most
valuable employees put value in aspects beyond compensation. Culture, communication, and
opportunity often trump the paycheck for talented employees capable of similar
compensation at alternative firms. In order to retain talented employees, organizations must
identify means by which to relate and cultivate employee commitment and job satisfaction.
This includes efforts to address intrinsic compensation beyond the quantifiable dollars
conveyed for performance. The development of relationships within the workforce can have a
positive correlation on an organization’s efficiency and performance.
There exists a significant number of studies that pertain to the concepts of leadership and
employee satisfaction in general. However, there are few that address specific leadership
styles within the context of job satisfaction. The lack of applicable studies that address
leadership styles within the context of job satisfaction and retention of economic
development professionals creates a need for the study.
Leadership Styles
Creating an organizational culture is imperative when building a valued and efficient
workforce. Leadership styles can vary from company to company, sector to sector, with each
style attracting a specific type of employee. To assess the value of leadership, two main
theories are examined: transformational and transactional leadership. Although these two
styles are far from indicative or comprehensive of the wide variety of styles, transformational
and transactional leadership contrast enough to provide sufficient options for most personality
types (Bass, 1990). On one hand, “transformational leaders inspire their followers with a
positive, value-based vision of the future, transactional leaders rely on clearly defined
quid-pro-quo transactions” (Rowold, 2014, p. 368).
The essence of transactional leadership is an exchange between a leader and follower.
Transactional leadership theories are rooted in the concept that the relationship between a
leader and follower is based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains (Hartog, Muijen, &
Koopman, 1997). The transactional leader “recognizes followers’ needs and desires and then
clarifies how those needs and desires will be satisfied in exchange for meeting specified
objectives or performing certain duties” (Daft, 2011, p. 360). This leads to followers receiving
rewards for performance in exchange for the leaders benefiting from the completion of tasks
(completing the transaction). In order for the transactional nature of this form of leadership to
be effective, the leader needs to clearly outline what is expected of the follower, as well as
identifying what the follower will receive in return (Hartog et al., 1997).
There are two basic types of transactional leadership: contingent reward and
management-by-exception. These types of transactions are differentiated by the leader’s level

4 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

of engagement or relationship with the followers. In contingent reward leadership, “the leader
and follower negotiate an agreement regarding what rewards or recognition the follower will
receive for a specific level of performance” (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999, p. 681).
The rewards or recognition are then provided once the follower completes the task.
Management-by-exception in transactional leadership focuses on mistakes, with leaders only
intervening after standards or goals have not been met (Pillai et al., 1999). This can be either
active or passive transactional leadership with the leader remaining “passive until problems
that need correcting emerge and then intervenes with criticism or reproof” or active by “the
leader actively monitors followers' performances to anticipate mistakes or deviations from
standards before they become a problem” (Pillai et al., 1999, p. 681). Either type, active or
passive management-by-exception, usually result in negative feedback, punishment, and/or
discipline. Transactional leadership tends to promote stability rather than promoting change
with an organization. These types of leaders are effective by “focusing on the present and excel
at keeping the organization running smoothly and efficiently” (Daft, 2011, p. 360). However, if
a leader only intervenes when tasks are not being met, transactional leadership can lead to
mediocrity in terms of organizational efficiency (Bass, 1990).
Where transactional leadership promotes stability and is generally passive, transformational
leadership can promote the type of active, engaged style of organizational culture typically
prioritized by a talented workforce. There are very few managers that rely solely on their
legitimate power as a source to motivate employees (Bass, 1990). Instead, managers and
leaders within the workplace rely on relationships, and transactions with employees to
accomplish organizational goals (Maidani, 1991). One of the most influential leadership
styles can be transformational leadership.
To contrast the two styles, a transactional leader motivates employees to perform “by contract
and reward through an exchange process, allocating rewards for good performance, a
transformational leader is more visionary and appeals to the higher order psychological needs
of employees of feeling valued and worthwhile in an organization” (Welty Peachey, Burton,
& Wells, 2014, p. 741). Transformational leadership occurs when a leader within an
organization pushes their employees to elevate their awareness, and “look beyond their own
self-interest for the good of the group” (Bass, 1990, p. 21). This can be accomplished by
charismatic leaders inspiring their followers to achieve greater accomplishments, by meeting
the needs of their employees, and by stimulating employees intellectually to enhance
creativity and increased performance within the workplace (Deichmann & Stam, 2015).
There is a positive correlation demonstrated between organizational commitment and the
tenets of transformational leadership (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Job satisfaction can
be increased as “transformational leadership enhances job satisfaction and team performance at
individual and team levels of analysis and directed attention to relevance of trust among team
members, in addition to trust in supervisors” (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013, p. 280).
Increased trust leads to increased loyalty. The transformational managers and leaders “are more
likely to be seen by their colleagues and employees as satisfying and effective leaders than are
those who behave like transactional leaders” (Bass, 1990, p. 21). One of the most appealing

5 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

aspects of a transformational leader to employees is that transformational leaders are

“individually considerate, that is, they pay close attention to differences among their
employees; they act as mentors to those who need help to grow and develop” (Bass, 1990, p.
21).
In comparing the two styles of leadership, the “transactional leader motivates subordinates to
perform as expected, the transformational leader typically inspires followers to do more than
originally expected” (Hartog et al., 1997, p. 20). The difference between transactional and
transformational leadership styles can be as simplistic as task-oriented or
relationship-oriented relations (Hartog et al., 1997). Many effective managers and executives
in today’s modern workplace do not just use one leadership style, “the best leaders are both
transactional and transformational which probably explains why studies have shown
consistently high inter-correlations between transformational and transactional leadership”
(Pillai et al., 1999, p. 898).
To be an effective leader, both transactional and transformational patterns are necessary to
“accentuate not only their abilities to build a vision and empower and energize others, but
also the transactional skills of designing structures, control systems, and reward systems that
can help people achieve the vision” (Daft, 2011, p. 361). Just because theorists have gone
about “contrasting transactional and transformational leadership does not imply that the
models are unrelated” (Hartog et al., 1997, p. 21). When used in collaboration, “transactional
contingent reward leadership builds the foundation for relationships between leaders and
followers in terms of specifying expectations, clarifying responsibilities, negotiating contracts,
and providing recognition and rewards for achieving expected performance” (Bass, Avolio,
Jung, & Berson, 2003, p. 215). Which then allows transformational leadership to enhance “the
development of followers, challenging them to think in ways in which they are not accustomed
to thinking, inspiring them to accomplish beyond what they felt was possible, and motivating
them to do so by keeping in mind the values and high moral standards that guide their
performance” (Bass et al., 2003, p. 215).
While it is clear that a multilevel approach to managing employees can be beneficial,
especially with employees who need the positive reinforcement of transformational leaders
combined with the advancement opportunities associated with transactional leadership, the
usefulness of one leadership style compared to another still does not address the cause of the
issue as to why employees choose to vacate gainful employment. It is a common occurrence
to have employees cite their interactions with managers and leadership as a primary reason
for quitting a job (Reina, Rogers, Peterson, Byron, & Hom, 2018). Employees who feel their
responsibilities are unclear, or that they lack organizational support for the tasks that are
identified, can become frustrated and report lower job satisfaction (Atefi et al., 2014). The
managerial influence based on tactics and leadership style has a significant effect on the
satisfaction of employees, and their decision to quit or stay within a position (Reina et al.,
2018).
Ultimately, the relationship between managers and subordinates matters to employees. If
negative, the relationship can cause instability in an organization’s workforce evident by the

6 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

fact “that managerial use of pressure tactics was positively associated with employee turnover,
and that inspirational appeals were negatively associated with turnover” (Reina et al., 2017, p.
13). Managers can work to improve employee interactions and perception, which “will
increase business-unit outcomes, including financial outcomes” (Harter, Schmidt, Asplund,
Killham, & Agrawal, 2010, p. 387).
Leadership’s Impact on Job Satisfaction
Happy, satisfied workers are efficient and effective workers. Job satisfaction can reflect
positive culture, good treatment by superiors, and an indicator of organizational functioning
(Spector, 1997). The extent to which employees like, or dislike their positions, job
satisfaction is quite simply “how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their
jobs” (Spector, 1997, p. 2). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment are one of the
largest factors that contribute to an employee’s intention to quit (Kumar & Eng, 2012; Salleh,
Nair, & Harun, 2012). The less satisfied an employee is within the current position, the more
likely that employee is to seek alternative employment (Spector, 1997).
When considering the motivations of employees, the environment and culture of the modern
worker must be taken into consideration. Raised in a digital age, the more recent generations
of employees “have been raised and socialized with unprecedented levels of positive
reinforcement and attention” (Johnson & Ng, 2015, p. 287). The want and need of positive
reinforcement creates a dependence on the stability of a positive manager or leader. Negative
emotions can lead to behaviors that result in detrimental effects on both the organization and
the employee’s health (Spector, 1997). Within the workplace, an employee’s self-esteem is
tied to the treatment and feedback received from supervisors, negative or abusive interactions
can affect the quality of work, increase job-related stress, and result in diminished job
satisfaction which can impact employee retention (Atefi et al., 2014; Vogel & Mitchell, 2017).
Most working adults have a negative experience in the workplace at one point in their career
that has resulted in leaving a job to get away from a manager who had a negative impact on
their employment (Harter & Adkins, 2015). Organizations that embrace policies “that
maximize job satisfaction will likely have employees who are more cooperative and willing
to help the organization be successful” (Spector, 1997, p. 72).
Research has indicated a direct link between these opportunities established within cultural
conditions, including employee appreciation, role clarity, colleague relationships, upward
advancement opportunities, and the performance of an organization (Harter et al., 2010).
With common job satisfaction categories such as opportunity, autonomy, and occupational
prestige that cross multiple industries, one significant variable to job satisfaction seems to be
leadership style (Bogler, 2001). Hence, it would behoove an organization to improve manager
relationships through leadership analysis and cultural adaptations. One way in which an
organization could mitigate the effects of negative supervisor interactions by “creating an
environment that enhances and maintains adaptive and safe interactions among employees,
organizations can reduce employees’ overdependence on their supervisor for the need to feel
valued” (Vogel & Mitchell, 2017, p. 2247).
Although, it is important to note that as with social groups and situations, when considering

7 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

the workplace, “there are people who want to be ‘managed’ and those who want to be
‘inspired’ and the choice between the two is a matter of ongoing negotiation between the
follower and the leader” (Martin & Epitropaki, 2001, p. 260). Both transformational and
transactional leaders can be effective in mitigating an employee’s desire to quit (Wells &
Welty Peachey, 2011). However, because an employee’s manager is often the most redundant
point of contact a person has with the overall corporate structure, the style of leadership
deployed by the manager must vary based on the individual needs of the follower.
Research Design
The qualitative research was designed to be correlational and designed to show potential
relationships between job satisfaction and the effectiveness of leadership styles. The
Vannsimpco Leadership Survey (VLS) was used to capture perceived leadership style and the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was chosen to address job satisfaction, both
intrinsic and extrinsic. Job satisfaction was the dependent variable while the leadership styles
were independent.
Data Collection Sources
The membership lists of national and regional professional associations were used to solicit
surveys from random and anonymous participants across the United States. Data obtained
was used anonymously. Participants received an adaptation of the Vannsimpco Leadership
Survey (VLS) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) through the online
distribution. The data was filtered to identify information including gender, education, years
of experience, tenure within the current position, and other demographic data. The results
were then generalized to the population of economic development professionals.
Data Analysis Techniques
The Vannsimpco Leadership Survey was used to identify the following preferred leadership
styles transformational, transactional, laissez-faire leadership, democratic, or autocratic
leadership styles. The VLS was also used to identify a hybrid or a combination of the styles.
The MSQ survey was designed to address 20 job satisfaction categories and used Likert-type
responses that provide for factor analysis of the data that results in two sub-factors: Intrinsic
and Extrinsic satisfaction. In addition, the two sub-factors scored on the MSQ were combined
to provide a raw data score for general satisfaction that indicates the respondent’s current
level of job satisfaction based on 20 categories that included participants such as recognition,
culture, utilization, and advancement opportunities. Each of the 20 factors contributed to an
overall job satisfaction score based on the rating system of the MSQ. An Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) test was then applied to determine if there were significant differences among the
leadership styles. A Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test (Tukey's HSD) was used to
test for significance between the means of the 36 leadership style pairs.
A regression test was used to identify a correlation between the leadership style and job
satisfaction score (Spatz, 2008). A single factor, one-way ANOVA was then used to analyze
the job satisfaction scores along the five thresholds identified in the survey Results were

8 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

compiled and analyzed utilizing Microsoft Excel’s data analysis tool. An alpha level of .05
was established for all statistical tests to identify significance.
Description of the Participants
The survey was distributed randomly and anonymously to adults working in the economic
development profession through email and then administered online. The respondent
population consisted of 92 economic development professionals randomly assigned across the
United States. Of the 92 participants, 43.5 percent (N = 40) were female and 56.5 percent (N =
52) were male. Forty-eight total respondents, just more than 52 percent, were 35 to 54 years of
age.
Half of the 92 respondents reported having a master’s degree, 31 respondents (33.7 percent)
possessed a bachelor’s degree, four had an associate degree, and six possessed a high school
education. While most professionals were mid-career age, 47 of the 92 total respondents (51
percent) had been in their current job six years or less. One-third of the 92 respondents (31
total, or 33.7 percent) reported between seven and 15 years of tenure at their current position
while 14 of the 92 (15.2 percent) had 16 or more years of employment with their current
organization.
Analyses of the Research Question Results
All participants began the study with demographic questions that established age, gender,
education, and length of current employment. A hybrid of the VLS and MSQ was then
administered to 92 participants. Scores were analyzed using a Likert scale of: 1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Questions five through 33 of the survey represented the VLS portion of the research. Within
these 27 VLS questions there were nine categories (three questions per category) of
leadership: Transactional, Democratic, Autocratic, Autocratic-Transformational,
Autocratic-Transactional, Democratic-Transformational, Democratic-Transactional,
Transformational, and Laissez-faire. Questions 34 through 54 represented the MSQ section of
the research. The MSQ yielded three satisfaction score categories: general satisfaction,
intrinsic, and extrinsic. The scores for questions 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 19 were representative
of the respondent’s extrinsic satisfaction, the remaining questions were used for an intrinsic
satisfaction score. All of the questions in the MSQ portion of the survey were used for a raw
general satisfaction score out of a possible 100 in accordance with the MSQ manual (MSQ,
1967).
In total, the 92 participants in the study reported a mean satisfaction score of 77.73 out of a
possible 100. These results indicate that the industry on a whole has high job satisfaction
since a score of 75 and above is considered high job satisfaction (MSQ, 1967).
Analysis of Research Question One: Is there a significant difference among perceived
leadership styles in the field of economic development? A single factor, one-way ANOVA
was conducted to analyze the participants’ responses to the survey. The ANOVA calculations
revealed a significant difference among the leadership styles of Transactional (M = 3.14),

9 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

Democratic (M = 3.69), Autocratic (M = 3.55), Autocratic-Transformational (M = 3.41),

Autocratic-Transactional (M = 2.77), Democratic-Transformational (M = 3.64),
Democratic-Transactional (M = 3.16), Transformational (M = 3.51), and Laissez-Faire (M =
3.02), (F [8, 819] = 12.36, p < .001).
The statistical analysis of data in the VLS portion of the survey indicated there was
situational leadership with no preference among the top five leadership styles of Democratic
(M = 3.69), Autocratic (M = 3.55), Autocratic-Transformational (M = 3.41),
Democratic-Transformational (M = 3.64), and Transformational (M = 3.51).
The analysis of data in the VLS portion of the survey through the ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD
indicated there was situational leadership with no preference among the top five leadership
styles of Democratic, Autocratic, Autocratic-Transformational, Democratic-Transformational,
and Transformational leadership.
Analysis of Research Question Two: Is there a significant relationship between leadership
style and job satisfaction? When tallying raw scores of the MSQ portion of the survey,
possible scores ranged from 20 to 100 total points. Of the 92 respondents to the survey, just
two scored below the 50-point threshold that indicated general satisfaction. Both scores were
48 points. As a whole, because the average score for the group was 77.73, exceeding the
75-point threshold for high job satisfaction, the industry of economic development
professionals would be considered to have a high degree of job satisfaction (MSQ, 1967).
Results indicated that there was situational leadership present with no preference among the
top five leadership styles. Regression tests examining the job satisfaction score and the mean
for each of the top five leadership styles was conducted using a regression test that resulted in
a Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation r. The regression test was used to identify a
correlation between the leadership style and job satisfaction score.
According to the regression test there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction
and the Democratic leadership style mean score (M = 3.69) for each participant, (r = .64, F[1,
90] = 60.95, p < .01) (Spatz, 2008). Table 2 shows the results of the regression test.
Table 2. Democratic Leadership Style Regression Summary

The interpretation of the test result should be considered since the correlation proved to be
significant using the regression test. According to rules for interpreting effect sizes proposed

10 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

by Cohen, a small or less significant effect would result in an r statistic of 0.20, a medium
effect would be approximately 0.50, and a large effect score would be 0.80 (Spatz, 2008). The
r coefficient score of 0.64 for Democratic leadership indicates that there was a medium to
large effect size of significance.
The regression test also indicated there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction
and the Autocratic leadership style mean score (M = 3.55) for each participant, (r = .45, F[1,
90] = 22.34, p < .01) (Spatz, 2008). Table 3 shows the results of the regression test. The r
coefficient score of 0.45 for Autocratic leadership indicates that there was a medium effect
size of significance.
Table 3. Autocratic Leadership Style Regression Summary

According to the regression test there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction
and the Autocratic-Transformational leadership style mean score (M = 3.41) for each
participant, (r = .54, F[1, 90] = 36.71, p < .01) (Spatz, 2008). Table 4 shows the results of the
regression test. The r coefficient score of 0.54 for Autocratic-Transformational leadership
indicates that there was a medium effect size of significance.
Table 4. Autocratic-Transformational Leadership Style Regression Summary

According to the regression test there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction
and the Democratic-Transformational leadership style mean score (M = 3.64) for each
participant, (r = .67, F[1, 90] = 75.06, p < .01) (Spatz, 2008). Table 5 shows the results of the
regression test. The r coefficient score of 0.67 for Democratic-Transformational leadership
indicates that there was a medium to large effect size of significance.

11 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

Table 5. Autocratic-Transformational Leadership Style Regression Summary

According to the regression test there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction
and the Transformational leadership style mean score (M = 3.51) for each participant, (r = .66,
F[1, 90] = 70.79, p < .01) (Spatz, 2008). Table 6 shows the results of the regression test. The
r coefficient score of 0.66 for Transformational leadership indicates that there was a medium
to large effect size of significance.
Table 6. Autocratic-Transformational Leadership Style Regression Summary

Of the nine leadership styles identified in the VLS, the five most common styles identified by
those respondents with a job satisfaction score above the highly satisfied threshold were the
Democratic, Autocratic, Democratic-Transformational, Autocratic-Transformational, and
Transformational leadership styles. When conducting a regression data analysis test for each
leadership style mean with the job satisfaction scores, each test concluded that there is a
significant relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction.
Discussion
The current unemployment trend as a result of COVID-19 will have impacts on the US
workforce for years to come. How organizations are constructed, and the manner in which
employees are lead becomes vital as organizations across the country rebuild their workforce.
As organizations call workers back, or seek to rebuild their workforce through new methods,
leadership and job satisfaction become vital to the attraction and retention of talented
employees. On the last day of November 2019, there were nearly seven million unfilled jobs

12 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

in the United States (Department of Labor, 2020). During that same month, 5.6 million
Americans in the workforce left employment with one organization to be hired at another, a
slight decrease from the highest new hires figure ever reported of 5.9 million hires in August
2018 (Department of Labor, 2020). Over the 12-month period from December 2018 to
November 2019, 69.8 million Americans were hired into new jobs (Department of Labor,
2020). With the United States reporting more unfilled jobs than there are unemployed
workers, the demand for talent in the workforce is at unprecedented levels. This trend
indicates fluidity in the job market that makes understanding the relationship between
leadership and job satisfaction vital. Research has indicated that leadership can have a
positive and significant effect on an employee’s job satisfaction and performance (Erawan,
Agung, & Martini, 2018). Research has shown that those employees that reported a lack of
job satisfaction identify manager relationships that lack effective communication or
acknowledgement of tangible problems (Atefi et al., 2014). The purpose of this research was
to identify common themes in the perceptions of leadership within the context of the
economic development profession while also exploring the relationship between leadership
styles and job satisfaction.
Practical Significance
The results of the survey indicated that there was situational leadership with no preference
among the top five leadership styles from their current supervisor.
Research Question One: Is there a significant difference among perceived leadership styles in
the field of economic development? A single factor, one-way ANOVA showed a statistically
significant difference among the perceived leadership styles. The ANOVA showed that
respondents perceived some leadership styles more often than others. The most common
leadership styles, sorted in descending order by their identified means, were as follows:
Democratic (M = 3.69), Democratic-Transformational (M = 3.64), Autocratic (M = 3.55),
Transformational (M = 3.51), Autocratic-Transformational (M = 3.41),
Democratic-Transactional (M = 3.16), Transactional (M = 3.14), Laissez-Faire (M = 3.02),
and Autocratic-Transactional (M = 2.77).
The two most common leadership styles, Democratic and Democratic-Transformational, are
leadership styles that value input from followers while striving to empower their followers to
achieve future growth from an organizational standpoint (Democratic) and a personal
standpoint (Transformational) (Vann, Simpson, & Coleman, 2014). However, the third most
common leadership style identified by the ANOVA exists in conflict with the first two.
Autocratic leadership involves leaders who “concentrate all decision-making with
themselves” (Vann, Simpson, & Coleman, 2014, p. 32). Where democratic leaders blur the
lines of hierarchical structure, autocratic leaders embrace the clear delineation of
organizational power. These top three leadership styles seemingly exist in conflict with each
other, yet the economic development profession as a whole averaged scores that
demonstrated effectively high job satisfaction. This led to the examination of differences
between the perceived styles.
The comparison of leadership styles was conducted with a Tukey’s HSD test. The test

13 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

compared 36 leadership style combinations and indicated a significant difference in 14 pairs,

but not the five independent leadership styles. The culmination of the data analysis conducted
under the first research question indicated that there was not a single perceived leadership
style identified by the economic development professionals. The data analysis also indicated
that there was situational leadership with no preference among the top five leadership styles
of Democratic (M = 3.69), Autocratic (M = 3.55), Autocratic-Transformational (M = 3.41),
Democratic-Transformational (M = 3.64), and Transformational (M = 3.51).
Research Question Two: Is there a significant relationship between leadership style and job
satisfaction? While there was not a single perceived leadership style that was prevalent
amongst the economic development profession, the data collected in this research showed a
relationship between job satisfaction and leadership style for each of the top five perceived
leadership styles. The average job satisfaction score of all 92 respondents was 77.73, above
the 75-point threshold for high job satisfaction (MSQ, 1967). A regression test was performed
to determine if a correlation existed between the top five perceived leadership styles of
Democratic (M = 3.69), Autocratic (M = 3.55), Autocratic-Transformational (M = 3.41),
Democratic-Transformational (M = 3.64), and Transformational (M = 3.51), and the job
satisfaction score. Each individual regression test indicated that there was a moderate to
largely significant relationship between the top five perceived leadership styles and job
satisfaction.
However, the subset of respondents who identified just one dominant perceived leadership
style and showed no correlation between leadership and job satisfaction. Those respondents
who perceived multiple leadership styles showed a correlation between the flexible,
multi-faceted leadership approach and their job satisfaction. While the group as a whole
showed a job satisfaction score average above the high satisfaction threshold, it could be that
those respondents who perceived just one single dominant leadership style were able to
anticipate their leaders’ expectations and establish job satisfaction through intrinsic
motivations that corresponded with their job responsibilities and roles.
Interestingly, while there were eight respondents in the 50 to 60-point job satisfaction range
(8.7 percent), the only two respondents to score below the 50-point job satisfaction threshold
both reported Laissez-Faire for being their supervisor’s dominant style. Both individuals were
male, age 45 to 54 years. One had a master’s degree with one to three years with their current
employer, while the other had a high school education and four to six years with the current
employer.
Limitations of the Study
The greatest limitation of this study was the population size of the sample. The survey was
distributed randomly to 2,603 anonymous economic development professionals. Less than
four percent completed the survey. While there were no geographic restrictions, the results
may or may not be generalized to the larger economic development profession in the United
States. The survey was administered during a three-week period, during which potential
participants were emailed the informed consent letter and survey up to three times. Because
the survey was distributed anonymously and randomly, there was no method of constricting

14 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

respondents to a limit of just one response. There was also the limitation of time, some
potential respondents may not have been available to participate during the data collection
period. The following section discusses implications of the findings.
Implications
This study addresses the gap in data available for the economic development profession as a
whole. It provides a piece of the foundation for future studies to move forward conducting
research that explores the job satisfaction and reasons why educated, professional employees
leave employment in which they are currently highly satisfied. Future studies can focus on
the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of job satisfaction, and how leadership styles relate to the
motivations of educated professionals in the economic development industry and related
fields. The findings of this research can be used to advance the knowledge of human capital
development not only in the economic development professional field, but also in similar
professions that rely on educated workers. Replicating the same study in similar fields can
produce cross-sector analysis opportunities that might address the broader population by
identifying factors that increase job satisfaction. This study was broad in nature, but can be
duplicated and refined to target specific demographics of future research. The research above
demonstrates it is imperative that future leaders understand the dynamic of their workforce as
organizations across all sectors struggle to attract and retain talented workers.
Conclusion
The challenge of leadership studies in general is to disentangle cause from effect. The
purpose of this study was to identify a common perceived leadership style in the economic
development profession, determine if there was a relationship between leadership and job
satisfaction, and identify the monetary threshold which generally satisfied employees would
leave their current employment. The results of the study found that while the economic
development profession as a whole has highly satisfied employees, there was not a single
perceived leadership style present. While Democratic, Autocratic,
Autocratic-Transformational, Democratic-Transformational, and Transformational were the
five most common perceived leadership styles, Laissez-Faire and Autocratic-Transactional
were perceived significantly less than the others.
When considering the respondent population as a whole, the data showed that the employees
were extremely educated and very satisfied in their profession in general. Overall, the
population of respondents are educated. Eighty-nine percent of respondents possess a
bachelor’s degree or higher, substantially more than the national average of 34 percent of US
workers (US Census, 2017). The data also showed that there was a significant relationship
between leadership style and job satisfaction. While no single leadership style was identified,
the economic development profession was highly satisfied as a group. Interestingly, the group
of respondents willing to leave their current position for just a ten percent increase in pay
were the least satisfied. The data demonstrated that there was a significant relationship
between lower job satisfaction and an employee’s willingness to accept a nominal increase to
change positions.

15 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

Employees that have positive job satisfaction and trust their leaders within the organization
are more efficient and effective in their job performance (Brown, Gray, McHardy, & Taylor,
2015). Effective and efficient employees are an organization’s most important commodity.
Managers can attract new workers and/or lessen the employees’ desire to seek alternative
employment through effective leadership. Therefore, it is imperative for leaders to understand
the context and composition of their staff as they seek to maintain the satisfaction of their
employees through effective leadership.
References
Atefi, N., Abdullah, K. L., Wong, L. P., & Mazlom, R. (2014). Factors influencing registered
nurse’s perception of their overall job satisfaction: a qualitative study. International Nursing
Review, 61(3), 352-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12112
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating
role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.283
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2),
207-218. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00131610121969460
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24(1), 270-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006
Brown, S., Gray, D., McHardy, J., & Taylor, K. (2015). Employee trust and workplace
performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116, 361-378.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.05.001
Daft, G. (2011). The Leadership Experience. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.921593
Deichmann, D., & Stam, D. (2015). Leveraging transformational and transactional leadership
to cultivate the generation of organization-focused ideas. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2),
204-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.10.004
Erawan, I., Agung, A., & Martini, L. (2018). The Effect of Leadership and Organizational
Commitment to Performance of Employees with Working Satisfaction as Intervening
Variables in Tanah Lot DTW Management Office. International Journal of Contemporary
Research and Review, 9(10), 21096-21108. https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/10/613

16 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

Harter, J., & Adkins, A. (2015). Employees want a lot more from their managers. Gallup
Business Journal. Retrieved April 12, 2018 from:
http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/182321/employees-lot-managers.aspx
Harter J. K., Schmidt F. L., Asplund J. W., Killham E. A., & Agrawal S. (2010). Causal
impact of employee work perceptions on the bottom line of organizations. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5, 378-389. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691610374589
Hartog, D. N., Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational
leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
70(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00628.x
Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of
employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000103
Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. 2015. When does charisma matter for top-level leaders? Effect
of attributional ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1051–1074.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0831
Johnson, J., & Ng, E. S. (2016). Money talks or Millennials walk: The effect of compensation
on nonprofit millennial workers’ sector-switching intentions. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 36(3), 283-305. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0734371X15587980
Kumar, R., & Eng, K. G. (2012). Perceived organizational commitment and its impact to the
turnover intention: A correlation analysis. Journal of Global Business and Economics, 4,
40–57.
Maidani, E. A. (1991). Comparative study of Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction
among public and private sectors. Public Personnel Management, 20(4), 441-448.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/009102609102000405
Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2001). Role of Organizational Identification on Implicit
Leadership Theories (ILTS), Transformational leadership and work attitudes. Group Process
Intergroup Relations, 4, 247-262. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1368430201004003005
McKeown, E. (2010). Retention in the upswing. Training & Development, 22(7), 96–106.
Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (2018). Labor Market Dynamics: The Effects
of Job Postings and Labor Market Activities on Total Employment. Retrieved from:
http://ohiolmi.com/research/publications/LaborMarketDynamics_1.pdf
Park, T. Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 268-309.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030723
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25(6), 897-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00031-8

17 www.macrothink.org/jmr
 Journal of Management Research
ISSN 1941-899X
2020, Vol. 12, No. 3

Reina, C. S., Rogers, K. M., Peterson, S. J., Byron, K., & Hom, P. W. (2018). Quitting the
Boss? The Role of Manager Influence Tactics and Employee Emotional Engagement in
Voluntary Turnover. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(1), 5-18.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1548051817709007
Rowold, J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Extending the transformational-transactional
leadership paradigm. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 28(3),
367-390. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F239700221402800304
Spatz, C. (2008). Basic statistics: Tales of distributions (8th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231549
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). Quits levels and rates by industry and region,
seasonally adjusted. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t04.htm
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary – January
2020. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
US Census (2017) Educational Attainment in the United States: 2017. United States Census
Bureau. Retrieved from:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html
Vogel, R. M., & Mitchell, M. S. (2017). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem
for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43(7),
2218-2251. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206314566462
Waldman, D. A., Carter, M. Z., & Hom, P. W. (2015). A multilevel investigation of leadership
and turnover behavior. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1724-1744.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206312460679
Wells, J. E., & Welty Peachey, J. (2011). Turnover intentions: do leadership behaviors and
satisfaction with the leader matter? Team Performance Management: An International Journal,
17(1/2), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591111114693
Welty Peachey, J., J. Burton, L., & E. Wells, J. (2014). Examining the influence of
transformational leadership, organizational commitment, job embeddedness, and job search
behaviors on turnover intentions in intercollegiate athletics. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 35(8), 740-755. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2012-0128
Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

18 www.macrothink.org/jmr