Higher Education Managers/Executives/Administrators
OBJECTIVE The purpose of the study was to determine if leadership behaviors affect followers’ productivity, job satisfaction and organizational commitment similarly at a for-profit higher education institution as found in similar studies in the health care industry.
METHODOLOGY The population comprised employees of a private, for-profit university with 12 individual campuses and one satellite campus, located in the Western United States. There were 20 leaders (either the campus manager and/or Dean of Education) and 104 constituents (a 24% response rate) who completed the Leadership Practices Inventory. They also provided demographic information and completed the Job as General Scale (Smith et al. 1997), Organizational Commitment scale (Ferris & Aranya, 1983), and Productivity Scale (McNeese-Smith, 1991).
KEY FINDINGS None of the demographical variables (i.e., gender, age, level of education, years experience in higher education, years at current institution, part time/full time status, annual salary, current position as faculty or staff, and time in current leadership position or time working for current leader) were not significantly related with any of the leadership practices. Responses on the LPI Self and LPI Observer were not significantly correlated with one another.
Model the Way, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Challenging the Process, Enabling Others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart were each significant associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity from the perspective of constituents. No significant relationships were found between leaders (self) perceptions of leadership practices and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity. These two main effects were also found when considering all five leadership practices as one single transformational leadership variable. “This study suggests that followers’ perceptions of leaders behaviors will significantly predict follower job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity” (p. 93).