Predicting academics’ job satisfaction from their perceived leadership styles: Evidence from Tanzania

Abstract

Over the last several decades, the attention of scholars in the field of leadership in higher education (HE) has been rapidly growing. A corpus of literature on leadership research has established how leadership styles affect institutional performance, organizational commitment, culture, employees’ motivation, effectiveness, retention, and job satisfaction. Although a considerable amount of research on how leadership is related to employees’ job satisfaction across literature exists, however, little research has studied the influence of academics’ perceived leadership styles on their job satisfaction in African countries and particularly in Tanzania. Drawing from Bass and Avolio’s (1994) Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT) and Herzberg’s two-factor theory, the present study examined the association between academics’ perceived leadership styles employed by either their deans or head of departments on their job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). The study was quantitatively driven with a cross-sectional survey design. A convenient sample of academics (N = 411) of which (Men: N = 310, Women: N = 101) from four Tanzanian universities responded to a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5x short) and MSQ. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed by using SPSS version 25 to detect significant predictors of academics’ job satisfaction. Results demonstrated that both perceived transformational and transactional leadership styles statistically significantly related to academics’ job satisfaction over and above their marital status, gender, age, academic rank, and institutional type. While the study has both practical and policy implications, it situates these findings into a broader management and governance literature of higher education leadership.

Keywords:

• Job satisfaction
• leadership styles
• intrinsic job satisfaction
• transformational leadership
• academics
• Tanzania

1. Introduction

The topic of higher education leadership has been of interest to many scholars over the last several decades. Extant research (see, e.g., Alonderiene & Majauskaite, 2016) shows that owing to changes in technology, globalization, global demographics, as well as work practices, the concept of leadership also has evolved over time. Although dozens of research exists on the effect of leadership on employees’ performance (Fernandez, 2008), employees’ creativity (Hughes et al., 2018; Koh et al., 2019; Suifan et al., 2018), motivation (Webb, 2007), employee effectiveness (Doucet et al., 2015), organisational commitment (Haque, Fernando, & Caputi, 2019; Lotfi, Atashzadeh‐Shoorideh, Mohtashami, & Nasiri, 2018), and retention in organizations (Shaw & Newton, 2014), job satisfaction (Boamah et al., 2018; Farrington & Lillah, 2018; Ghasemy et al., 2022; Mgaiwa & Hamis, 2022; Singh & Ryhal, 2021), however, there is a paucity of research on leadership styles in higher education (Bryman, 2007). Studies by Ghasemy et al. (2022) in Malaysia, Mwesigwa et al. (2020) in Uganda, Aboramadan et al. (2021) in Palestine and Alonderiene and Majauskaite (2016) in Lithuania could be pointed out as one of the very few studies in the field of higher education research. Of particular interest is the bibliometric analysis by Esen et al. (2020) which indicated that in the last two decades, most of the research in higher education were predominantly from only three countries: the UK, the U.S.A., and Australia. Such bibliometric analysis further suggests a paucity of research in leadership research in HE, particularly from developing countries like Tanzania. Therefore, further research is needed especially in Tanzania, a third-world country where the leadership and its effect on faculty job satisfaction could be different.

With the fast growth of university education in Tanzania from the late 1990s as a result of the liberalization policies of the mid-1980s (Mgaiwa, 2021; Mgaiwa & Poncian, 2016), Tanzanian academics have been facing an unprecedented heavy workload owing to massification policies (Mgaiwa, 2021). For example, a piece of anecdotal evidence suggests that at the University of Dar es Salaam, a flagship university, academics teach up to 28 lectures a week, contrary to TCU guidelines that require a maximum of 10 lectures per week. At the same time, the ongoing league table for universities of becoming or remaining to be flagship universities places extra demands on academics’ job performance, especially on research and publications. Furthermore, the higher education sector in Tanzania has been facing a brain drain of its academics emigrating to developed countries where there seem to be a reasonable workload and green pastures (Altbach, 2013; Amani & Komba, 2016), while others leaving academia to join politics and other non-academic jobs. Existing empirical evidence (see e.g., Hariri, Monypenny & Prideaux, 2016; Saleem, 2015) show mixed results on the relationship between academics’ perceived leadership styles and their job satisfaction, Hence, calling the need to further examine the relationships between the two constructs. These reasons make studying academics’ job satisfaction in the light of their perceived leadership styles not only critical but also timely to promote academics’ job satisfaction.

In the context of Tanzania (and probably of many other countries), the overarching questions debated by leadership research scholars are what leadership styles should be promoted to influence academics’ job satisfaction. For example, findings from a study in Ugandan public HE, on the relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment among academic staff mediated by academics’ job satisfaction indicated that job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment. However, this finding would have been more significant, if it would have been conducted solely between leadership styles and job satisfaction and could have been conducted in both public and private universities.

At least four major limitations in previous research suggest the need to continue the dialogue on the two constructs. First, nearly most previous studies were conducted in research areas other than higher education (see, e.g., Aydin et al. (2013)) and the few conducted in higher education (see, e.g., Alonderiene & Majauskaite, 2016) were either conducted on public universities alone or private HE institutions alone or studied other leadership styles and job satisfaction (e.g., Aboramadan, Dahleez & Hamad, 2021; Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2022; Latif, Machuca, Marimon, & Sahibzada, 2020). Second, virtually all existing empirical research on the relationship between leadership styles and academics’ job satisfaction was in Asia (see e.g., Ababneh, 2020; Aboramadan et al., 2021; Bogler (2001); Shyji and Santhiyavalli (2014); Singh & Ryhal, 2021), America (see, e.g., Heyliger & Heyliger, 2014) and western countries (e.g., Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013). Third, no similar research has been conducted in Tanzania’s higher education. Forth, some existing research in HE research between leadership styles and job satisfaction either used leadership styles other than transformational and transactional (see, e.g., Ghasemy et al., 2022) or had mixed results that call for further research between the two constructs. Therefore, in the present study, I endeavoured to overcome such limitations by (a) examining the relationship between academics’ perceived leadership styles as employed by their academic leaders in Tanzania HE based on two more theoretical frameworks and (b) involving both public and private universities in Tanzania.

University management can use the findings of the current study to identify gaps in the leadership training of academic deans and heads of departments, particularly with emphasis on leadership styles perceived to increase academics’ job satisfaction. For the part of academic leaders themselves, can take further steps by refining their leadership styles based on their academics’ perceived preferred leadership styles. The current study findings may contribute to social change at the faculty and departmental levels by making academic leaders (i.e., deans and HoDs) aware of preferred leadership models that foster higher job satisfaction among academics in HE.

2. Theoretical framework and hypothesis

The present research is guided by two theoretical frameworks namely Full Range Leadership Theory by Bass and Avolio’s (1994) and Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction. My conception of leadership styles principally draws upon Bass and Avolio’s (1994) Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT). Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT) is a theoretical framework that appeared in the last three or so decades (B. M. Bass, 1985). Before Bass and Avolio (1985), in his seminal work, Burns (1978) headed the idea of transformational and transactional leadership styles, differentiating transactional from transformational leaders. Based thereon, Bass (1985) later discovered eight factors of leadership behaviours and examined their leadership effectiveness.

Since 1978, transformational and transactional leadership has remained one of the most disputed and debated concepts in the field of leadership research. While the full-range leadership theory encompasses three leadership styles (i.e., transformational, transactional, and laisser-faire), the extant literature depicts transformational leadership as the most popular and effective organisational leadership style (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2010). In his groundbreaking work, B.M. Bass (1985) argued that transformational and transactional leadership styles are complementary constructs rather than polar constructs. He further argued that transformational leadership is an extension of transactional leadership styles. Of particular interest, is the argument by Lowe et al. (1996) who argued that the transformational leadership style is not effective in the complete absence of transactional leadership styles. According to Bass (1999), while transformational leaders inspire, individually consider, and mentally arouse their supporters, transactional leaders focus on reinforcing their followers’ contingent rewards. According to scholars, Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT) is one of the most discussed theories in leadership research (Alonderiene & Majauskaite, 2016). In their groundbreaking research, B. M. Bass (1985) proposed transformational and transactional leadership styles.

2.1. Transformational leadership style

Although Full Range Leadership Theory come later in the 1980s, the concept of transformational leadership styles started in the late 1970s, it is one of the contested theories in leadership research. For example, Bernard M. Bass (1999) asserted that transformational leaders tend to stress what employees can do for their institutions by raising their morale, motivation, and morals, rather than what institutions can do for employees. The literature indicates the transformational leadership concept was further developed when Bass (1985) introduced methods of measuring the effectiveness of transformational leaders (Kovjanic et al., 2013; Northouse, 2010). Covey (2007) argued that transformational leadership is designed to “transform or convert” individuals, while both Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) believed transformational leadership can change the lives of followers and societies by changing society’s perceptions, ideals, and ambitions. Since then, many definitions have been offered by scholars regarding transformational leadership, most of which revolve around the ability of leaders to raise their followers’ morale, motivation, and morals (Bernard M. Bass, 1999; Cheng, 2014; Choi et al., 2017; Jabbari & Samavarchi, 2011).

Describing the characteristics of transformational leadership, Choi et al. (2017) argued that the reciprocal linkage of transformational leadership makes employees feel a sense of confidence in, loyalty to, and admiration for their leaders. This argument has found support in research by Liu et al. (2009), who argued that a reciprocity relationship aims at realizing change by having leaders and their subordinates advance their morale by helping each other. The preceding evidence suggests that the strong bond between leaders and their subordinates is built by a shared vision, which is an outcome of shared institutional goals and individual goals. According to Avolio and Bass (1999), transformational leadership is manifested by four main dimensions—inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio & Bass, 1999; Deinert et al., 2015 p. 1097)—that differentiate transformational leaders from other leaders. According to Bass, (1985), transformational leadership have with four basic features:—Individualized consideration, Intellectual stimulation, Idealized influence, and Inspirational motivation.

2.1.1. Individualized consideration

Scholars (see, e.g., Antonakis et al., 2003; Yue, Men, & Ferguson, 2019) have generally described individual consideration as a leaders behaviours in which leaders direct, help, and emphasis the specific needs of employees, to support their professional development and progress. This dimension entails that transformational leaders tend to show concern for their followers by treating them as individual human beings, knowing their followers well, listening to their opinions, and assigning duties grounded on employees’ abilities and wants. Avolio (1990) further established that transformational leaders with individual consideration aspects tend to encourage their followers and link employees’ current needs to the organisational mission.

2.1.2. Idealized influence

According to Bass and Avolio (1985), idealized influence denotes leaders’ behaviours as role models for their followers. Through their emotional impact, make their followers internalize their leaders’ vision, values, and missions. According to Deinert et al. (2015), idealized influence makes transformational leaders appreciated, admired, and emulated by their followers.

2.1.3. Intellectual stimulation

Occasionally, transformational leadership is described as charismatic leadership. This notion is based on the intellectual stimulation aspect of leaders’ actions and their ability to appeal to their supporters’ consciousness of logic and scrutiny, provoking them to contemplate imaginatively and find solutions to problematic issues. This involves leaders’ re-framing the issues, pushing followers to stimulate them intellectually, and encouraging them to advance new and innovative ideas by challenging the old ways of doing things (Bass et al., 2003; Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013).

2.1.4. Inspirational motivation

In this dimension of transformational leadership, leaders use non-intellectual and emotional qualities to arouse and heighten their followers’ motivation (Bass, 1985). This concerns how leaders’ motivating behaviours help their followers attach meaning to tasks they perform, and how inspirational motivation cultivates followers’ optimism. Van Eeden et al. (2008) maintained that inspirational leaders are seen to commit to the organisational vision and mission while communicating their expectations to their followers and expressing their confidence in their followers’ ability to meet such expectations (Van Eeden et al., 2008). Generally speaking, research findings (see, e.g., Mittal & Dhar, 2015; To et al., 2015), have indicated that transformational leadership can bring about a sense of creativity among workers through intellectual stimulation.

2.2. Transactional leadership style

Although there exist many definitions of transactional leadership, most are derived from its historical perspective and how the models work. For example, to Bass (1985), transactional leadership centres on valuing structures and order in an organisation, while Deichmann and Stam (2015, p. 205) defined it as an exchange relationship in which the leaders clearly express their expectations to their followers. Transactional leaders tend to establish standards for their employees based on pre-defined requirements; performance reviews are the most pervasive way of judging employees’ performance in transactional leadership.

A considerable amount of literature (see, e.g., Emery & Barker, 2007; Mason et al., 2014) defines transactional leadership style as a contractual exchange of rewards for employees’ efforts. This definition was later supported by other scholars (see, e.g., Afsar et al., 2017), who asserted that transactional leaders, supervisors and their supporters gather to interchange respected outcomes by illuminating each other’s responsibilities and prospects. Followers are rewarded for making desired contributions and meeting performance goals. Overall, based on the definitions put forward by scholars, transactional leadership suggests that promises, rewards, and recognition of accomplishments keep employees working for, satisfied by, and committed to their employers and their organisation. The question remains, however, what will happen if the organisation either does not have any rewards to offer or offers rewards that employees do not value?

The transactional leadership style focuses on watching for deviations from the rules and standards set by the organisation and takes corrective actions or intervenes only when ideals are compromised (Bass, 1990), a process called management by exception. Overemphasis on deviations may suggest that transactional leadership puts more weight on employees’ compliance with pre-determined rules and regulations (Afsar et al., 2017; Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013) than creative works that are outside legal/regulations boundaries. Overemphasis on compliance with rules further suggests that transactional leaders mostly give negative feedback to their employees, because their focus is on fault-finding and deviations, rather than on motivating employees to stimulate their satisfaction and performance. Like transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style also has facets or dimensions that differentiate it from other leadership theories when observed on leaders’ behaviour scales. Building on Burns (1978), Bass (1985) identified three main dimensions of transactional leadership—laissez-faire, management by exception, and contingent rewards.

Contingency reward: This concerns the level to which leaders establish purposes and reward systems for each accomplished set of goals. Bono and Judge (2004) contended that contingent reward is concerned with leadership behaviours that focus on the give-and-take of resources and that leaders offer definite or indefinable help and possessions to employees in a swap for their labour and performance. This implies the reciprocal nature of transactional leaders’ rewards and employees’ efforts and performance.

Management by exception: Scholars have categorised transactional leadership behaviour as management by exception—either active or passive. Management by exception (active) concerns such leader behaviours as close monitoring of their followers’ performance and tracking their mistakes to identify non-compliance and deviations. This also involves taking, where necessary, corrective measures to address deviations and non-compliance. Conversely, management by exception (passive) represents to what extent leaders’ behaviour is dominated by a passive approach, in which they only intervene when problems become grave or severe.

While some leadership style research has included laissez-faire leadership as part of transactional leadership, according to the theoretical foundation by Bass and Avolio (1990), laissez-faire leadership is regarded as the absence of leadership. Therefore, because it represents no leadership, it was not included in the present study. Overall, some literature has indicated that leaders predominantly displaying transactional leadership behaviours might exhibit characteristics of transformational leadership, the two leadership constructs are distinct, with different features. For example, unlike transformational leaders, transactional leaders are reactive, passive, and responsive, because they take no action until there is a problem concerning non-compliance and deviations (Hamstra et al., 2014; Kim & Lee, 2011; Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013). Despite the weaknesses of transactional leadership, it is credited for being more useful in organisations that seek efficient use of resources (Deichmann & Stam, 2015, p. 206), as it reduces opportunities for wastage and always seeks employees’ compliance with pre-determined rules and regulations. Leadership literature further indicates that transactional leadership is more useful during crises than transformational, distributed, or instructional leadership styles (Mazánek, 2015; Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013). As such, transactional leadership is more successful in military and similar security organisations, than in service and cooperate organisations.

2.3. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction

The major assumption of Herzberg’s two-factor theory is that employees/human beings are influenced by two factors (i.e., motivators and hygiene factors). These factors are important to employees’ motivation. According to Herzberg, motivators encourage employees’ job satisfaction while hygiene factors forestall job dissatisfaction. On one hand, scholars (see e.g., Kuluchumila, 2014) have described motivators to comprises of recognition, achievements, growth possibilities, level of responsibility, career advancement, and the job itself. On the other hand, the hygiene /maintenance factors/dissatisfiers do not have any motivational value to employees when present, but rather they have a de-motivational effect if absent. Such factors include administration, company policy, supervision, job security, salary, interpersonal relations, status, and personal life. While motivators are intrinsic to the job itself, hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job itself. Scholars (see, e.g., Dartey-Baah & Amoako, 2011; Thant & Chang, 2021) have described the failure of researchers to examine the relationship between satisfaction and performance as one of the major weaknesses of Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of motivation. Both maintenance factors (i.e., administration, company policy, supervision, job security, salary, interpersonal relations, status, as well as personal life and motivators (i.e., recognition, achievements, growth possibilities, level of responsibility, career advancement, and the job itself) have been described to influence employees’ job satisfaction.

Scholars (see e.g., Alvinius et al., 2017) regard job satisfaction one of as the most researched work-related constructs in the field of organisational behaviour. The concept of job satisfaction has long been used in industrial psychology, but its popularity was more pronounced in the 1960s when the human relations movement first emphasized the significance of workplace attitude. The pioneers of the human relations movement, such as Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939), Maslow (1965), McGregor (1966), and Likert (1967), credited job satisfaction with the ability to raise workplace morale, gaining it the consideration of not merely managerial practitioners, but also scholars. Several scholars have offered definitions of job satisfaction; for example, Locke (1976) described job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience” (see p. 1304), while Alonderiene and Majauskaite (2016) well-defined it as a set of emotions, feelings, or attitudes related to one’s working environment, and Bushra et al. (2011) called it an individual’s experience-based emotional response towards his or her work or workplace. In line with Alonderiene and Majauskaite (2016), this research defines job satisfaction as a set of emotions, feelings, or attitudes toward one’s job, thus incorporating both one’s emotions about and one’s feelings toward one’s working environment.

Job satisfaction remains among the most studied industrial and organisational psychology constructs (Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Judge, 1993; Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001), for two main reasons. First, job satisfaction is effective in addressing employees’ absenteeism, fluctuation in production, and organizational inefficiencies, such as counter-productive behaviour and sabotage (Dormann & Zapf, 2001). Second, job satisfaction is relevant to employees’ motivation to work and to those interested in evaluating such working conditions as task diversity, work requirements, and communications. Smith, Kendal and Hulin, (1969) as well as Locke (1976) suggested that pay, promotions, recognition, co-workers, supervision, the company and its management, the work itself, and working conditions are fundamental factors in determining employees’ job satisfaction. Some scholars have separated these factors into intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015); for example, factors such as pay, company and management, promotions, and recognition are considered extrinsic factors, while the work itself, supervision, working conditions, and co-workers are considered intrinsic (Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001). Research on job satisfaction indicates that internal and external influences can be elucidated by the umbrella term, “working environment,” in studying employees’ job satisfaction (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015).

2.4. Research on leadership styles and job satisfaction

Effective leadership is a vigorous component of achieving organisational visions and missions. Effective leaders, according to Smith (2006), are well-grounded people who can precisely articulate their vision to their followers. As such, effective leaders can stimulate their subordinates to work towards achieving the institutional vision; in short, vision realization and ways of influencing followers are determined by the leadership style one employs. Other scholars on organisational research (see, e.g., Derue et al., 2011) have established that the behaviour exhibited by organisational leaders defines their style of leadership. Such leadership styles have different components or behaviours that differentiate them. Some empirical evidence indicates that transformational leaders are apt to positively influence employees’ job satisfaction, due to their ability to instil confidence in workers and stir them to value work-related outcomes (Kim & Lee, 2011). On the other hand, based on Kim and Lee’s observation, transactional leaders may be highly likely to negatively influence employees’ job satisfaction.

Concurring to Bass (2006), employee job satisfaction is a function of transformational leaders’ ability to inspire employees, and employees’ freedom to challenge their leaders, think differently, and show genuine concern for their employers. Conversely, styles in which leaders are reactive rather than proactive are considered management-by-exception (B. M. Bass, 1985). Based on the reciprocity approach, employees under transactional leadership are more apt to be discontented with compensation scheme equity (Kim & Lee, 2011). Shyji and Santhiyavalli (2014) investigated the relationship between principals’ teacher-perceived leadership styles in Indian higher education institutions and academics’ job satisfaction and revealed a significant positive link between the two. The results also indicated that leadership styles and socio-economic variables contributed to academics’ job satisfaction. Another research, conducted in Israel by Bogler (2001), observed the effect of leadership styles on teachers’ job satisfaction, revealing that transformational leadership exercised by school principals positively influenced teachers’ job satisfaction, both candidly and implicitly, through their job opinions. As such, teachers’ occupation perceptions positively affected their job satisfaction (Bogler, 2001, p. 674). These findings suggest people’s perceptions may impact their job satisfaction.

A meta-analysis of twelve pieces of research, conducted in Turkey by Aydin et al. (2013), studied the influence of leadership styles on staff job satisfaction and job commitment. Findings indicated that transformational leadership style positively influenced teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment; that is to say, the change of leadership styles from transactional to transformational increased teachers’ job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Aydin et al., 2013, pp. 808–809).

The context in which a particular leadership style is applied is a key determinant influencing one’s job satisfaction. The above studies reveal transformational leadership styles are significantly positively related to employees’ job satisfaction; conversely, transactional leadership styles had a moderate relationship with job success, but in most cases did not positively influence employees’ job satisfaction. Scholars advocate that institutional needs and context should determine the type of leadership style used. For example, in situations that require an organisation to outperform other organisations in the league table, transactional leadership is advocated, because success may be judged based on compliance with set rules. However, if such a league table is about employees’ creativity, innovations, or pursuing higher-order goals, the organisation should consider other leadership models (e.g., transformational leadership). Conversely, in situations that necessitate employees’ learning and development, transformational leadership is advocated. Research has shown both leadership models have pros and cons, but their use is context-dependent.

Although research on the relationship between leadership styles (i.e., transformational and transactional leadership) is informative and illuminating, the existing literature has several limitations that call for the present study: First, nearly all previous studies were conducted in areas other than higher education (see, e.g., Aydin et al. (2013)) and the few conducted in higher education (see, e.g., Alonderiene & Majauskaite, 2016; Heyliger & Heyliger, 2014) were either conducted on public universities alone or private HE institutions alone. Second, almost all existing empirical research on the relationship between leadership styles and academics’ job satisfaction was in Asia, America and western countries. Third, no similar research has been conducted in Tanzania’s HE. Forth, some existing research in HE research between leadership styles and job satisfaction either used leadership styles other than transformational and transactional or had mixed research results that in anyhow call for further research between the two variables. Thus, in this study, I endeavoured to overcome such limitations by (a) examining the relationship between academics’ perceived leadership styles as employed by their academic leaders in Tanzania HE based on two more theoretical frameworks and (b) involving both public and private universities in Tanzania (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.

Notes: Demographic factors to be examined in this research include academic rank, age, gender, marital status, working experience, and primary discipline of specialization.

2.5. Research hypothesis

H1: H1 The academics’ perceived transformational leadership style has a positive and significant impact on their job satisfaction.

H2: The academics’ perceived transactional leadership style has a positive and significant impact on their job satisfaction.

3. Study context and methods

The research context of the current study was examining the relationship between perceived academics’ leadership styles and job satisfaction in Tanzania’s higher education. A cross-sectional research design was used with a survey employed for data collection. According to the available data, universities in Tanzania are categorised into three groups: Full-Fledged Universities (n = 34), University Colleges (n = 15), and University Campuses, Centres and Institutes (n = 11). Currently, there are thirty-four (34) Full-Fledged Universities, fifteen (15) University Colleges, and eleven (11) University Campuses, making a total of 60 university institutions (TCU, 2018). The landscape of the academic work environment is characterised by the high rate of turnover due to brain drain (Amani & Komba, 2016; Fussy, 2017), an undesirable work environment indicative of constrained academic freedom and university autonomy (Mgaiwa, 2021). The four universities were purposively selected because they represented both public and private universities. The selection of these four universities was further influenced by the Full Range Leadership Theory and Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation adapted for the current study’s methodological design.

As such, the inclusion of both public and private universities was based on the fact Public Universities (PUs) and Private universities (PRUs) would best represent a true picture of universities in the country. Additionally, both PUs and PRUs in Tanzania are governed by one legal entity (i.e., Tanzania Commission for Universities) and both are governed under the Universities Act of 2005 and its procedures.

3.1. Participants

Participants in the present study were 411 academics conveniently sampled from 4 universities in Tanzania, 2 being state-owned and the other 2 being privately owned. Given the nature of the present study, I employed convenient sampling for the reason that it is the simplest, least time-intensive, and least expensive to implement (Bornstein et al., 2013; Jager et al., 2017). Arguing for sample size adequacy for exploratory factor analysis, Pearson and Mundform (2010) recommended a ratio of at least five participants per question item. Therefore, given the number of question items in the present study, the sample size of 411 participants was adequate.

3.2. Measures

Notwithstanding providing the demographic information mentioned above, the participants responded to two self-report inventories in English: MLQ-5x-short, to measure academics’ perceived leadership styles (Bernard M Bass & Avolio, 1996) and Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (MSQ) containing. The MLQ-5x-short is a 45-statement self-report test in which participants rated themselves on how they perceived leadership styles employed by their academic leaders on a seven-point response measuring the degree to which the statement fits them (i.e., from 1 indicating “Absolutely disagree” to 7 indicating “Absolutely Agree”). The MSQ is a 20 items inventory (Weiss et al., 1967), for assessing one’s job satisfaction. The participants used a seven-point Likert-type scale on MSQ-short to rate themselves by indicating how the statements did not describe them at all, and “seven” denoting that the statement described them extremely well. Since Tanzanian universities use English as a medium of instruction, therefore, both questionnaires (MLQ-5x short and MSQ) were in the English language.

3.2.1. Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5x-short)

To meet the needs of the current research for assessing transformational and transactional leadership styles, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5x Short) by Bernard M Bass and Avolio (1996) was adopted. This is a widely used inventory (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 2000). The MLQ-5x short has five subscales for assessing transformational leadership and three for transactional leadership. However, given the nature of the present research i.e., employing only two leadership styles (i.e., transformational, and transactional leadership styles), only 36 items were used.

MLQ is most widely used by researchers and practitioners, and over time has proven to be effective in several research settings around the world (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). For example, a study of 3,786 respondents (Avolio et al., 1999) in the United States indicated satisfactory reliability and validity, while another study, by Khalifa and Ayoubi (2015), conducted among academics in Syria revealed satisfactory reliability and validity. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for MLQ-5x across existing studies range from .61 to .94. Furthermore, the MLQ-5x short has been translated into several languages effectively and successfully, with all the translated and validated versions having shown high factorial and convergent validity, internal consistency, test/retest reliability, and inter-rater agreement (Bass & Avolio, 2000; Khalifa and Ayoubi (2015). The MLQ-5x short version is the current version, with 45 items, and is known as a classic version. It normally takes 10 minutes to complete this inventory. While the original version of MLQ-5x adopted a five-point scale, (i.e., 0 = Not at all, 1 = One in a while, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Fairly often, 4 = Frequently if not always), this research adopted a seven-point scale (i.e., 1 = Not At All Well, 2 = Not Very Well, 3 = Slightly Well, 4 = Somewhat Well, 5 = Well, 6 = Very Well, 7 = Extremely Well) that is broader, more reliable, and allows respondents to be more precise when responding to items (Streiner, 2003). The MLQ was sent to the expert after modification of the scale to check whether or the modified scale was fine. Sample items for the MLQ include: “Express confidence that goals will be achieved” (Inspirational motivation) and “Express satisfaction when I meet expectations” (contingent reward).

3.2.2. The Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (MSQ-short)

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ-short), originally designed by Weiss et al. (1967), is a widely-used inventory for measuring workers’ perceived job satisfaction. Scholars have used the MSQ in thousands of doctoral theses, master’s dissertations, and research projects to produce successful results related to employees’ job satisfaction (Ahmadi & Alireza, 2007; Mansoor et al., 2011; Nguni et al., 2006; Shyji & Santhiyavalli, 2014; Spitzbart, 2013; Unzicker, 2012). Originally, the MSQ short version was a product of the Work Adjustment Project carried out at the University of Minnesota. The philosophy behind this inventory assumes work suitability is contingent upon the resemblance between one’s abilities and the existing supports in the work environment (Weiss et al., 1967). Since this study was part of a broader project conducted in many countries and included other variables with scales of more than 5 points, MSQ was also modified to resemble the 7-point scale. After such modifications, the MLQ was sent to the expert to check whether the modified scale met the requirement of the study.

However, a major difficulty in assessing employees’ job satisfaction is that employees may be contented with certain dimensions of work, and discontented with others (Spagnoli et al., 2012). This has presented some challenges to many existing inventories of job satisfaction assessment, which have mainly taken two major approaches. The first is a macro perspective in which respondents are required to show their overall feelings or perceptions about their current job (Wanous et al., 1997). The second focuses on asking employees to reveal the extent they are contented or pleased with different dimensions of a job, with overall job satisfaction being determined by the summation of employees’ satisfaction scores with several dimensions or facets. The MSQ generally measures three proportions of job satisfaction—intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and general satisfaction. One of the items representing extrinsic satisfaction is “The opportunities to do different things from time to time.

While there are other existing inventories for measuring job satisfaction, the MSQ has several advantages. For example, scholars have shown, through its psychometric indices, that the MSQ is steady over time. Moreover, earlier studies have indicated satisfactory coefficient alpha values, extending from .85 to .92, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients from .85 to .91 (Martins & Proença, 2012). Therefore, it was justifiable to use the MSQ in the present study, specifically in Tanzanian HE, where it has never been used before.

3.3. Procedures

To ensure this study is conducted within the ethical principles governing research, the ethics approval for the present study was obtained from the University of Hong Kong Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More importantly, the researcher provided a detailed explanatory statement regarding the aim of the present research. Given the nature of this research, the researcher employed an information sheet instead of the participants’ informed consent form before collecting the required data in addition to maintaining the confidentiality of the collected data. All procedures followed were under international research ethical guidelines. Such ethics approval was used to introduce the researcher to research sites (i.e., the four universities) in Tanzania before data collection. The data collection exercise leapt from June 2019 through August 2020. As such, upon securing permits of Vice-chancellors in the study universities, a total of 750 questionnaires were distributed to academics in the four study universities and 422 questionnaires were returned to the researcher which explained the 56.3% response rate. However, incomplete surveys (N = 11) were excluded from the final analysis and 411 fully completed which represented a net response rate of 54.8% were included in the final analysis.

3.4. Data analyses

Since the data for the current research was quantitative, I analysed the collected data using computer software (i.e., the Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 25.0) to examine both inventory reliability through estimations of internal consistency, calculated by computing their Cronbach’s alphas. Before conducting the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), the researcher conducted data screening to check the missing values and outliers. As such, since the two inventories were used for the first time with academics in Tanzania, the factor structures (validities) of the two instruments were examined by EFA. To examine the influence of demographic variables on key variables, analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed. Correlation analyses were also conducted to examine the relationship between academics’ perceived leadership styles and job satisfaction. More importantly, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to explore whether or not academics’ perceived leadership styles were statistically related to academics’ job satisfaction. To precisely do this, only marital status among the demographic variables was controlled due to its significant correlation with study key variables. Variables such as age, gender, academic rank, work experience, university type, and primary discipline were not controlled in the subsequent analyses because they were revealed to have no significant correlation with key study variables.

4. Results

4.1. Demographics

As indicated in the methods section, the sample of this study constituted 411 (i.e., 310 males and 101 females) from four universities in Tanzania. These four universities (public and private) represented well the types of universities in Tanzania as they ranged from flagship public universities to recently established public universities to teacher-training university colleges. The participants’ ages ranged from 24 to 67 years. Of the 411 academics, 122(29.9%) were in mathematics and natural sciences while 286 (70.1%) were in humanities and social sciences. More importantly, the research sample constituted 2(0.5%) full professors, 4 (0.9%) associate professors, 14 (3.4%) senior lecturers, 97 lecturers (23.8%), 223 assistant lecturers (54.7%) and 68 (16. 7%) tutorial assistants. To a large extent, the research sample reflected the academic profiles of university teachers in Tanzanian universities being more skewed towards the lower academic ranks with a few numbers of associate professors and professors.

4.2. Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5x short)

4.2.1. Internal scale reliability

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the 9 scales of the MLQ were .87 (idealized influence-behavioural), .85 (Intellectual stimulation), .83 (Inspirational motivation), .85 (contingent reward), .87 (Management by Exception-Passive), .76 (idealized influence-Attributed), .74 (Laisse-faire), .75 (Management by Exception-Active), and .82 (Individual Consideration). The reliability of MLQ in the present research is comparable to the results from previous studies (see e.g., Antonakis, 2001; Jamison, 2019; Kanste, Miettunen, & Kyngäs, 2007; Soldo, 2017).

4.2.2. Internal construct validity

The exploratory factor analysis of the MLQ-5x short scales resulted in 9 factors. Overall, the results of EFA for MLQ-5x short were very good. Specifically, 9 components were forcibly extracted by using Principal Component Analysis with Direct Oblimin as a rotation method. Considering that the present research focused on only transformational and transactional leadership styles, the nine extracted components were as per the theoretical assumptions. The nine extracted components explained 68.6% of the variance in the data set. The EFA indicated that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was .84, suggesting that the data were suitable for factor analysis (Carpenter, 2018; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Additionally, the factor analysis of the MLQ data showed item loading for all 9 scales was above .3 0, ranging from .46 to .92 with exception of item 10 (i.e., idealized influence [attributed]). Since literature (see e.g., Carpenter, 2018; Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) suggest a significant cut-off level for item loading be anywhere between .30–.40, in the present study, the cut-off value for item loading was supported by the existing literature. Owing to its weakness of item loading less than .30, item 10 was excluded from all subsequent analyses.

More importantly, some items still had cross-loading problems. For example, item 1 (i.e., Contingent reward) and item 22 (i.e., Management by Exception-Active) all had a cross-loading problem. Additionally, there was also a problem with some items loading in scales other than their theoretical scales. For example, item 22 (i.e., Management by Exception-Active) is loaded on a scale other than its theoretical scale. Owing to this problem, item 22 was excluded from the subsequent analysis because the difference between its loading and the cross-loading item was less than .15 (Worthington, & Whittaker, 2006, p. 823). However, item 1 (i.e., contingent reward) was retained because the difference between its loading and the cross-loading item was above .15 (Worthington, & Whittaker, 2006, p. 823). The details of the factor structure are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Oblimin-rotated nine-factor model for the MLQ-5x short

	Component
	ID-(Beh)-1	IS-2	IM-3	CR-4	MBE-(P)5	ID-(Atri)6	LF-7	MBE-(A)8	IC-9
MLQ-23	.79
MLQ-14	.75
MLQ-34	.73
MLQ-6	.71
MLQ-22	.45							.33
MLQ-32		.89
MLQ-2		.87
MLQ-30		.84
MLQ-8		.74
MLQ-13			.86
MLQ-9			.81
MLQ-26			.80
MLQ-36			.78
MLQ-11				−.85
MLQ-35				−.85
MLQ-16				−.78
MLQ-1				−.67				.39
MLQ-20					−.92
MLQ-12					−.91
MLQ-3					−.91
MLQ-17					−.46
MLQ-18						.83
MLQ-25						.81
MLQ-21						.70
MLQ-28							.81
MLQ-7							.76
MLQ-5							.69
MLQ-33							.62
MLQ-24								.68
MLQ-27								.67
MLQ-4								.64
II (Atr)-10
MLQ-15									.82
MLQ-29									.78
MLQ-19									.76
MLQ-31									.64

Notes: II-A = Idealized influence (attributed), II-B = Idealized influence (behavioural), IC = Individual Consideration, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, CR = Contingent Reward, LF = Laisses fare, MBEA-A = management by exception (Active), MBA-P = Management by Exception (Passive)

4.3. Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (MSQ)

4.3.1. Internal construct validity

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the MSQ. Based on the prior theoretical model and the scree plot as a standard for the selection of components, two factors (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic components) were forcibly extracted using principal component analysis as an extraction method with Oblimin rotation. The two extracted factors accounted for 58.7% of the variance in the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). The EFA indicated that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was .82. According to Pett et al., (2003) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the KMO value of .60 or higher suggests that the sample is suitable for factor analysis.

4.3.2. Scale reliability

Based on the reliability test through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), overall, the MSQ exhibited satisfactory reliability, due to its calculated Cronbach’s Alpha value of .92 with retention of 17 question items (N = 411). As such, data showed that item loadings for MSQ ranged from .58 to .90. According to scholars (see e.g., Carpenter, 2018; Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) George and Mallery (2003) George and Mallery (2003), both two scales had acceptable internal scale reliability of .60 or higher (i.e., intrinsic satisfaction with the alpha value of .92 while extrinsic satisfaction had an alpha value of .86). The results of the two-factor model are comparable to the results from previous studies carried out in diverse population samples (see e.g., Saner, & Eyüpoğlu, 2012; Hirschfeld, 2000; Martins, & Proença, 2012; Negussie, & Demissie, 2013; Sharp, 2008).

4.4. The relationships between academics’ perceived leadership styles to job satisfaction

The relationship between academics’ perceived leadership styles to job satisfaction is presented in Table 2 and 4. As expected, partial correlation results indicated that three of five dimensions of transformational leadership styles (i.e., idealized influence [attributed], individual consideration, and idealized influence [behavioural]) were statistically significant and positively related to both intrinsic and extrinsic facets of job satisfaction. Notwithstanding the association between transformational leadership style and job satisfaction, some dimensions of transactional leadership style (i.e., Management by Exception Active) were also related to job satisfaction, although the magnitude of their relationships was weak. Table 2, shows the details of factor structure of MSQ.

Table 2. Oblimin-rotated two-factor model for the MSQ-short

S/N		Factors
		Intrinsic 1	Extrinsic 2
1	Intrinsic-9	.83
2	Intrinsic-3	.81
3	Intrinsic-15	.81
4	Intrinsic-2	.80
5	Intrinsic-1	.80
6	Intrinsic-8	.74
7	Intrinsic-16	.71
8	Intrinsic-10	.69
9	Intrinsic-7	.69
10	Intrinsic-11	.67
11	Extrinsic-13		.90
12	Extrinsic-5		.89
13	Extrinsic-14		.77
14	Extrinsic-19		.68
15	General-18		.62
16	Extrinsic-12		.60
17	General-17		.58

Table 3 provide the details of descriptive statistics for all four key research variables.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the Key research variables

			Variables
Construct	Dimension	Range	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Leadership Styles	Idealized Influence (Atr)	13.0	12.70	2.13	−1.2	3.1
	Idealized Influence (Behv)	19.5	15.98	4.19	−0.5	−0.1
	Individual Consideration	19.5	16.92	3.78	−0.8	1.0
	Inspirational Motivation	13.0	5.90	2.25	1.2	3.0
	Intellectual Stimulation	19.5	16.17	3.86	−0.6	0.2
	Contingent Reward	12.0	10.12	2.75	0.2	−0.8
	Laisses-faire	19.5	15.92	3.62	−0.5	0.6
	M’ment by Excep (Act)	14.0	11.74	2.83	−0.4	0.0
	M’ment by Excep (Pass)	10.3	7.84	2.76	0.1	−0.8

Table 4. Partial Correlation of Perceived Leadership Styles to Job Satisfaction (N = 410)

	II_A	II_B	IC	IM	IS	CR	LF	MBE-A	MBE-P	IN-JS	Ex-JS
II_A
II_B	.377**
IC	.318**	.417**
IM	−.031	−.025	−.121*
IS	.031	.020	.033	−.028
CR	.257**	.389**	.276**	−.036	−.011
LF	.271**	.357**	.376**	−.015	.016	.234**
MBE_A	.298**	.400**	.439**	−.063	−.022	.339**	.293**
MBE_P	.331**	.488**	.382**	−.051	−.056	.414**	.319**	.386**
IN-JS	.359**	.472**	.929**	−.123*	.011	.294**	.452**	.475**	.408**
Ex-JS	.322**	.442**	.465**	−.039	.011	.822**	.510**	.359**	.369 **	.537**

II-A = Idealized influence (attributed), II-B = Idealized influence (behavioural), IC = Individual Consideration, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, CR = Contingent Reward, LF = Laisses fare, MBEA-A = management by exception (Active), MBA-P = Management by Exception (Passive) IN-JS = Intrinsic job satisfaction, EX-JS = Extrinsic job satisfaction. *p< .05, **p< .01

Generally, partial correlations showed that there were statistically meaningful relationships between the independent variable and an outcome variable.

4.5. Predicting academics’ job satisfaction from perceived leadership styles, while controlling demographics

While controlling demographics, as expected, results from hierarchical regression analyses (see details in Table 5) showed that both types of job satisfaction (i.e., extrinsic, and intrinsic) were correlated to some dimension(s) of transformational leadership styles. Noticeably, individual consideration (IC) and Idealized influence (behavioural) are statistically significantly related to both extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction. The unique variance in job satisfaction accounted for by academics’ perceived leadership styles beyond demographics ranged from 1% to 58% in job satisfaction. For example, perceived transformational leadership styles explained 58% in academics’ job satisfaction. These results suggest that academics perceived transformational leadership style fundamentally influences their job satisfaction. Notwithstanding the influence of perceived transformational leadership style on academics’ job satisfaction, unexpectedly, both extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction were also statistically positively related to some dimension(s) of transactional leadership style. For example, perceived transactional leadership styles accounted for 48% of the total variance in academics’ job satisfaction. It is important to note however that, the magnitude of their prediction for transformational leadership styles on job satisfaction was relatively higher than that of transactional leadership style.

Table 5. Predicting job satisfaction from perceived leadership styles, controlling demographics

JS		Extrinsic satisfaction	Intrinsic satisfaction
R2		0.62	0.59
Total
R2		0.01	0.02
demo
R2		0.61	0.57
PLS
F		490.74***	276.97***
df		7,400	11,396
	βII-A
Transformational	βII-B	.09***	.07**
	βIC	.09***	.54***
	βIM
	βIS
Transactional	βCR		. 01***
	βLF	.58***
	βMBE-A		.05*
	βMBE-P

Note: PLS = Perceived leadership styles, JS = Job Satisfaction II-A = Idealized influence (attributed), II-B = Idealized influence (behavioural), IC = Individual Consideration, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, CR = Contingent Reward, LF = Laisses fare, MBEA-A = management by exception (Active), MBA-P = Management by Exception (Passive) *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

5. Discussion

The present research aimed to examine whether or not academics’ perceived leadership styles would predict their job satisfaction. To answer this research question, the relationship between academics’ perceived leadership styles and their job satisfaction was quantitatively examined. The results (see, Table 5) showed that there was a statistically significant relationship between transformational leadership styles i.e.,—individualized consideration and Idealized influence (behavioural) statistically and both extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction.

Based on the meaning of individualized consideration (see, e.g., Antonakis et al., 2003), these findings suggest that what most satisfies academics in their job is how their leaders behave in terms of helping them and the emphasis on their specific needs such as supporting their professional development and assistance they receive when performing their duties. While individualized consideration is presented as the first and most notable characteristic of transformational leaders (Kirkbride, 2006), it entails that transformational leaders tend to show concern for their subordinates by treating them as individual human beings, knowing their subordinates well, listening to their opinions, and assigning duties grounded on employees’ abilities and wants. These elements of what individualized consideration entails to a transformational leader may explain clearly why in the present research individualized consideration was related to academics’ job satisfaction. Arguing in support of the transformational leadership style, Rafferty and Griffin (2004) emphasised that transformational leaders always offer socio-emotional support to their subordinates to resolve their difficulties and to increase their potential and performance in the organization. Such socio-emotional support offered by transformational leaders makes subordinates satisfied with this leadership style and so do their jobs.

Idealized influence (behavioural) which denotes leaders’ behaviours as role models for their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1985), also significantly accounted for academics’ job satisfaction in the present research. The main argument of Bass (1999) was that transformational leaders with idealized influence behaviours tend to articulate how a future can be realized collectively with their employees. Such behaviour makes them appreciated, admired, and emulated by their followers. Of course, with such behaviours, transformational leadership behaviour makes followers satisfied with their job as a result of leader behaviour.

Although it was hypothesized that the perceived transformational leadership styles would positively be related to academics’ job satisfaction while perceived transactional leadership style would negatively be related to academics’ job satisfaction, unexpectedly, there was a significantly positive relationship between transactional leadership styles and both extrinsic and intrinsic academics’ job satisfaction. At least two possible reasons can explain why both transformational leadership and transactional leadership were related to academics’ job satisfaction. First, the two leadership styles are complementary to each other, and the transformational leadership style is not effective in the complete absence of transactional leadership styles (Lowe et al., 1996). Arguably, this could be only one of the many reasons why both transformational leadership and transactional leadership styles were related to academics job satisfaction. Possibly, academics who perceive the transactional leadership style as a panacea for their job satisfaction are likely to have the same transactional leadership style. Although this finding did not fully support the hypothesis, it echoed the results of previous studies conducted both in educational settings and non-educational settings (see, e.g., Nazim Ali et al., 2014; Nguni et al., 2006; Riaz & Haider, 2010). The unexpected results are comparable to Jamison’s (2019) research that revealed a significant positive relationship between passive avoidant leadership style (i.e., transactional leadership style) and team members’ job satisfaction. Overall, the hypothesis was largely supported although with some unexpected results.

Furthermore, in his seminal work, B.M. Bass (1985) argued that transformational and transactional leadership styles are complementary constructs to each other rather than polar constructs. He further argued that transformational leadership is an extension of transactional leadership styles. Other scholars further argued that the transformational leadership style is not effective in the complete absence of transactional leadership styles (Lowe et al., 1996). Arguably, this could be only one of the many reasons why both transformational leadership and transactional leadership styles were significantly related to academics’ job satisfaction.

What is revealed in the present research suggests that if managers or employers need to foster academics’ job satisfaction, they are ought to employ more transformational and some elements of transactional leadership styles. These findings further suggest that academics would be more satisfied with transformational leaders, in addition, to having some elements of transactional leadership as well. Considering the dimensions of academics’ perceived leadership styles that played a significant role in predicting their job satisfaction, broadly, these findings further suggest that to foster academics’ job satisfaction, university management needs to pay more attention to academics’ specific needs, listen to their opinions, and assign them duties based on abilities while providing them with necessary academic freedom.

Overall, these findings on the significant positive prediction of job satisfaction from both academics’ perceived transactional and transformational leadership styles corroborate the findings from previous studies conducted in educational settings (see, e.g., Aydin et al., 2013; Biggerstaff, 2012; Heyliger & Heyliger, 2014; Torlak & Kuzey, 2019). For example, drawing from previous studies, Heyliger (2014) examined the relationship between administrators’ leadership styles and academics’ job satisfaction. The findings revealed that academics who tended to score higher on perceived transformational leadership styles also tended to score higher on job satisfaction. Similarly, academics who scored higher on the perceived transactional leadership style also had increased job satisfaction.

5.1. Limitations and future research

As other research might be, the present research had its shortcomings as follow: Firstly, the results reported in this research were obtained purely through examining self-reported data which could be considered a descriptive survey rather than explanatory. Although the questionnaires were anonymous, academics may have wanted to appear they perceive their leaders as more transformational than they are. As such, academics may have not provided honest and accurate responses that represented what they felt. Therefore, future research should endeavour to use an alternative study design, such as mixed-methods, or qualitative.

Secondly, owing to actual practical limitations, the sample of the present research was obtained through a convenient sampling procedure and the convenience sample exclusively came from a single country (Tanzania); therefore, it could be presumptive that the results were restricted to the one Country leadership culture (Tanzania), which restrict in making generalized inferences about other leadership cultures, thus posing a challenge on providing biased results. Therefore, future research should endeavour to use a random sample from cross-cultural leadership context. Finally, although perceived leadership styles were employed as the predictor variable and job satisfaction as the criterion variable, the statistically significant findings reported in the present study only represent relationships, rather than causal relationships. Therefore, future research should endeavour to use more robust statistical tests to establish causality instead relationship established in the current research.

5.2. Implications to theory & practice

These results could be useful for university leaders particularly those in charge of human resources management and academic leaders (i.e., deans and heads of department) to exercise a more transformational leadership style with few elements of transactional leadership style. The results can also be very valuable for university management and particularly those responsible for leadership development. Understanding the importance of transformational leadership style to academics’ job satisfaction may help leadership instructional designers to design leadership programmes that would enrich transformational leadership style for academics aspiring for leadership positions and incumbents. Of particular interest, the present study provides a new perspective from which academics’ job satisfaction, and hypothetically that of workers other than academics, can be understood through the concepts of perceived leadership styles. In other words, the present study advances our knowledge of transformational and transactional leadership research and adds insight into its relationship with academics’ job satisfaction in the higher education sector. At the same time, the present findings pledges for a conversation among three academic fields: occupational psychology, the academic profession, and educational leadership. The findings of the present research encourage universities and other higher education institutions alike, to train their leaders to employ and nurture transformational leadership behaviours among university managers and academic leaders. This research also encourages universities in Tanzania and other countries with similar contexts to embrace clear measures toward building a satisfied community of academics.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data set on which this paper is based can be obtained from the first author upon reasonable request through [email protected]

Additional information

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Samson John Mgaiwa

Samson John Mgaiwa is a postgraduate student at the University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Education, Hong Kong SAR. His scholarly works have centred around the Higher Education Financing, Leadership, Management, Quality Assurance and Public Private Partnership as well as Teacher Education. Samson is a published research author in several refereed international journals