A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF

PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES ON THE

JOB SATISFACTION OF TEACHERS

ASIF IQBAL
Dr./2004-22

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB

LAHORE
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF
PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES ON THE
JOB SATISFACTION OF TEACHERS

ASIF IQBAL

SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN EDUCATION AT
THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB
LAHORE
June 2010

i
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to all those intellectuals, researchers, and inventors on the

GLOBE who are participating and sharing their knowledge to make this world

peaceful and prosperous regardless of the race, region, and religion.

ii
Accepted by the Faculty of Institute of Education and Research, University of the
Punjab, Lahore in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy in Education.

---------------------------

Director

Doctoral Committee: ________________ Chairman

________________ Member

________________ Member

________________ Consultant

Dated:

iii
 DECLARATION
I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work
has been identified and cited properly and that no material is included which has
been submitted for any other award or qualification.

Signature
Date

iv
 ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to compare the impact of principals’ leadership

styles on job satisfaction of teachers. The instruments used for this study were the

Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ) and the Job Satisfaction

Scale for Teachers (JSST). The sample of the study was 352 principals and secondary

school teachers working under their headship in public sector secondary schools in

the province of Punjab, Pakistan. Completed questionnaires were returned from 310

principals and 1188 teachers. So, the response rate was 88%. Data were analyzed by

using SPSS version 15 to test the null hypotheses. T -test and one way ANOVA were

applied. Statistical and descriptive evidences of the study concluded that 82% of

school principals use a democratic style of leadership and only 18% use an autocratic

style of leadership. Male and female heads have demonstrated significant differences

in their leadership styles. Teachers working under a democratic style of leadership

were more satisfied than teachers working under an autocratic style of leadership.

When male and female arts teachers were compared on both styles, there was a

significant difference as female teachers were more satisfied. Overall female teachers

were more satisfied with their pay, work, working conditions, colleagues, promotion,

teaching profession, and supervision than males. Age, qualification, experience,

academic work, refresher courses, number of teachers and students in school, and

posting had no significant impact on job satisfaction levels of teachers.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah Almighty Who has given me the knowledge and will

power to complete the most intricate chore. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Mahr

Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, the supervisor of my thesis to inspire me day and night

openly as well as with his silent prayers to complete the work. Without his visionary

guidance and silent instigation, it is impossible for me to succeed. My parents and

family deserve my thanks, especially my kids Ahtisham, Qurat- ul-Ain, and Uzair who

sacrificed the sources of time and money and energize me with silent prayers to dive

into deep sea of knowledge. The best group of my colleagues and friends who are

always with me in the need of hour deserve special thanks. To day I feel myself at that

stage of knowledge which is self actualization. I pray to God to give me the

enthusiasm to devote myself in serving the humanity towards the right path.

The group of principals and secondary school teachers have deserved for

special thanks who participated voluntarily to accomplish the task with out any

incentive for this materialistic world but open their balance for hereafter. Highly

qualified faculty of my department deserve special thanks whose expert guidance

made me successful.

I would like to pay best compliments to my colleague Syed Zubair Ahmed

Shah for analysis and interpretation of data. All those persons who participated and

decorated the work in different ways earn special thanks. Higher Education

Commission is also credited for financial support.

A. I.

vi
 LIST OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TOPICS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Objectives of the Study 4

Hypotheses 4

Significance of the Study 5

Delimitations of the Study 6

Operational definitions 6

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 8

Definitions of leadership 8

Forms of leadership 10

Features of leadership 10

Functions of leadership 11

Sources of leader power 11

Chronological emergence of leadership studies 12

Perspectives of leadership 13

Prominent studies of leadership 14

The IOWA leadership studies 14

The Ohio State leadership studies 15

The Michigan studies on leadership styles 16

Difference between leadership and management 17

Difference between leadership style and behaviour 17

vii
Leadership styles 18

Autocratic leadership style 18

Democratic leadership style 20

Laissez faire leadership style 21

Women and leadership 21

Leadership in an international context 23

Research on autocratic and democratic leadership styles 25

Job satisfaction 28

Definitions of job satisfaction 28

Significance of job satisfaction 28

Factors of job satisfaction 29

Theories of job
Interpersonal satisfaction
factors 30

Intrinsic factors 30

Extrinsic factors 31

Theories of job satisfaction 32

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 33

Herzberg’s two-factor theory 33

Alderfer’s ERG theory 34

McClelland’s theory of needs 35

Measurement of job satisfaction 35

Dimensions of job satisfaction 35

Salary 36

Promotion 37

Supervision 37

viii
 Work 38

Work group or colleagues 38

Working conditions 39

Personal determinants of job satisfaction 40

Gender 40

Rural and urban work site 42

The role of teacher 42

The role of student 43

The school size and environment 43

Policy 44

Teacher absenteeism 45

Job satisfaction and educational level 45

Job satisfaction and professional level 46

Rank and job satisfaction 46

Age and job satisfaction 47

Job satisfaction and tenure 48

Experience and job satisfaction 48

Public and private sector 49

Job satisfaction in an international context 49

Leadership styles and teachers’ job satisfaction 51

3 METHODOLOGY 53

Population of the study 53

Sample of the study 53

Hypotheses 56

ix
 Instruments of the study 60

Leadership styles measurement questionnaire (LSMQ) 61

Pilot testing of LSMQ 62

J Job satisfaction scale for teachers (JSST) 62

Pilot testing of JSST 63

Demographic survey 63

Validity of instruments 63

Reliability of instruments 64

Collection of data 64

Data analysis 64

Summary 65

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETITION 66

Comparison of leadership styles of male and female

secondary school principals 66

Comparison of the impact of autocratic and democratic

leadership styles on the job satisfaction of teachers 71

Comparison of the impact of demographic variables on

overall job satisfaction of teachers 91

Comparison of the impact of job satisfaction dimensions

with respect to gender, location, and category of teachers 100

5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,

DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105

Summary 105

Findings 106

x
Conclusions 117

Discussion 122

Recommendations for further research 126

REFERENCES 127

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX I

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

3.1 Item breakup of leadership styles measurement

Questionnaire 61

3.2 Item breakup of job satisfaction scale for teachers 62

4.1 Summary and type of data and method of analysis 66

4.2 Percentage of heads with autocratic and democratic

leadership styles 67

4.3 Percentage of male and female principals working in

urban areas 67

4.4 Percentage of male and female principals working in rural

areas 67

4.5 Autocratic and democratic leadership styles of principals 68

4.6 Leadership styles of male and female principals in rural

areas 69

4.7 Male and female principals in urban areas 69

4.8 Male principals working in urban and rural areas 70

4.9 Female principals in urban and rural areas 71

4.10 Urban and rural teachers working under democratic style 71

4.11 Urban and rural science teachers 72

4.12 Urban and rural arts teachers working under democratic

style 73

4.13 Urban and rural ma le teachers 74

xii
4.14 Urban and rural female teachers 74

4.15 Urban and rural male science teachers 75

4.16 Urban and rural male arts teachers 76

4.17 Urban and rural female science teachers 77

4.18 Urban and rural female arts teachers 77

4.19 Male and female science teachers 78

4.20 Male and female arts teachers 79

4.21 Urban and rural teachers under autocratic style of

leadership 79

4.22 Urban and rural science teachers under autocratic

leadership 80

4.23 Urban and rural arts teachers unde r autocratic leadership 81

4.24 Urban and rural male teachers 82

4.25 Urban and rural female teachers 82

4.26 Urban and rural male science teachers 83

4.27 Urban and rural male arts teachers 84

4.28 Urban and rural female science teachers 84

4.29 Urban and rural female arts teachers 85

4.30 Male and female science teachers 86

4.31 Male and female arts teachers 87

4.32 Male and female teachers under democratic leadership 87

4.33 Male and female teachers under autocratic leadership 88

4.34 Male science and arts teachers under democratic

leadership 89

xiii
4.35 Female science and arts teachers under democratic

leadership 89

4.36 Male science and arts teachers under autocratic leadership 90

4.37 Female science and arts teachers under autocratic

leadership 91

4.38 Job satisfaction level among male and female teachers 92

4.39a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and age among

male teachers 92

4.39b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and age among

female teachers 93

4.40a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and qualification

among male teachers 93

4.40b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and qualification

among female teachers 94

4.41a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and experience

among male teachers 94

4.41b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and experience

among female teachers 95

4.42 Job satisfaction level on work load of secondary school

teachers 95

4.43a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and refresher

courses among male teachers 96

4.43b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and refresher 96

courses in female teachers

xiv
4.44a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and teachers’

strength among males 97

4.44b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and teachers’

strength among females 97

4.45a One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and enrollment on

male teachers 98

4.45b One way ANOVA on job satisfaction and enrollment on

female teachers 98

4.46 Job satisfaction level on posting of secondary school

teachers 99

4.47 Job satisfaction level with other sources of income 100

4.48 Job satisfaction dimensions with male and female

teachers 100

4.49 Job satisfaction dimensions with urban and rural teachers 102

4.50 Job satisfaction dimensions with science and arts teachers 103

xv
 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

It is an acknowledged fact that teacher under visionary leadership is the vital

source in changing the lives of individuals. The research in the area of leadership and

job satisfaction is intertwined. Their relevance is vital in strengthening the

effectiveness of worldwide educational process. All intellectual development on the

globe definitely credited to teachers. Professional competencies, academic skills, and

knowledge are optimized with mind satisfaction. Teachers play an essential role in

reshaping the economical structure so the state is responsible to motivate the teachers

towards the profession with maximum incentives. Many studies have investigated

positive impact on the achievement of learners with teacher’s cooperation under the

participatory vision of principals (Bolam, McMahon, Pocklington, & Weindling,

1993; Silins & Murray-Harvey, 1999). They affect directly organizational and

academic performance of teachers which in turn affects students’ achievement

(Cheng, 2002; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Shum & Cheng, 1997; Starrett, 1993). The

teachers as well as administrators in social organizations also affect the achievement

of the students (Wiley, 2001). However, it is obvious from many studies that direct

affect of principals on students’ achievement is near zero (Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo,

2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Johnson, Livingston, Schwartz, & Slate, 2000;

Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Witziers, Bosker,

& Kruger, 2003). It can be achieved only with the help of satisfied teachers.

It is essential to investigate relevant leadership styles for understanding the

dimensions of leadership. Prior leaders in education accentuated the task dimension

behavior that was most relevant to autocratic leadership style while others highlighted
 2

the consideration dimension that was similar to democratic leadership style. Personal

styles of most leaders were expressed as autocratic or democratic, task-oriented or

people -oriented, directive or collegial, initiating structure or consideration (Owens,

2004), and directive or participative (Somech & Wenderow, 2006).

The responsibility of principals is to encourage democratic decisions, improve

schools, promotion of self management, and acquaint themselves with the

requirements of market orientation (Caldwell, 1998; Elliot, 1992; Silins, 1994).

Autocratic and democratic leaders are compared by their leadership characteristics.

The autocratic leader centralized authority and depend on his/ her administrative

power. On the other hand, democratic leader delegates and shares authority as well as

power with his followers and encourages their participation in decision making (Daft,

2005). The group led by autocratic leaders performed the tasks well under the

presence of leaders only. However, they were displeased with closed autocratic style

of leadership. The group performance who was assigned democratic leaders was good

and characterized by positive feelings rather than hostility. Under the democratic style

of leadership, group members performe d well even the leader was absent and left the

group on its own (White & Lippitt, 1960). The participative techniques used by the

democratic leader to train and involve group members such that they performed well

with or without the leader’s presence. These characteristics of democratic leadership

explain why the empowerment of lower employees is a popular trend in companies

today.

Thus leaders are categorized as autocratic (boss centered), democratic

(subordinate centered), and combination of both styles. However, while switching

from autocratic to democratic or vice versa is not easy. Their styles may be adjusted

to cope with the existing situation (Daft, 2005). In a study conducted by House,
 3

Wright, and Aditya (1997) reported that although a democratic style of leadership is

more popular than an autocratic style all over the world, managers in all countries

tend to prefer directive behaviors over persuasive behaviors. The effectiveness of

leadership styles depend on behavior instead of personality trait. Leadership training

develops suitable behavior. Unfortunately, in the present situation, where every one is

trying to make its both ends meet, the teacher is especially a victim of such malicious

circumstances. The world is too acquisitive. The teachers who entered in the

profession by chance and not by choice feel more satisfaction in government schools

as there is less pressure of work, high payment, low supervision, automatic

promotion, and mostly home station enjoyment. The most important factor of their

satisfaction is job security. Once entering in government job, there are least chances

for getting removed (Mehrotra, 2005).

Teachers are human beings attached with several personal and family oriented

requirements to be met. Unable to complete those necessities resulted in annoyance,

detached behavior, and finally they revolted (Ubom & Joshua, 2004). Concentration

on these two leadership styles was made essential on the logic of sound motives

(Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997). They are most relevant in optim izing fruitful results

(Sagie, Zaidman, Amichai-Hamburger, Te’eni, & Schwartz, 2002; Somech, 2005).

They established policy about work and conduct of people (directive leadership),

solicited thought provoking teachers’ opinions (participative leadership), and linked

with elevated efficiency (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). They also assess the work of

teachers under such styles. Finally, they provoke and appreciate teachers’ suggestions

while working effectively (Kahai, et al., 1997; Sagie, et al., 2002).

 4

Statement of the Problem

Every person works under some authority to be supervised so that his/her

ability be increased. Strong and visionary leadership make it possible. Specific

leadership style of a leader may divert the abilities of teachers to obtain the optimum

objectives. Hence the existing study was planned to compare the impact of autocratic

and democratic leadership styles of principals on the level of job satisfaction of

teachers working in public sector secondary schools in the province of the Punjab.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are:

i. To identify the leadership styles of principals of public sector

secondary schools in Punjab.

ii. To determine the impact of leadership styles on the job satisfaction of

secondary school teachers.

iii. To explore the impact of overall job satisfaction with respect to

different demographic variables.

iv. To examine the impact of job satisfaction dimensions with respect to

gender, school location, and teacher category.

Hypotheses

The study was conducted to test 46 null hypotheses. The statements of

hypotheses are given in chapter III. First 5 null hypotheses were about identifying the,

“leadership styles of male and female Principals” in public sector secondary schools

of the Punjab. The other 28 hypotheses were related to explore the impact of

principals’ leadership styles on the job satisfaction of teachers. Further 10 hypotheses

were to investigate the impact of overall job satisfaction with different demographic
 5

variables. The remaining 3 hypotheses explored the impact of job satisfaction

dimensions with respect to gender, school location, and teacher category.

Significance of the Study

As it revealed from many studies, a significant impact of leadership styles on

the job satisfaction exists. The performance of satisfied workers/ teachers is much

better. Therefore it is important to investigate in the scenario of Pakistan. The study is

a valuable addition towards the knowledge and practice especially in Pakistani

context as there is a scant empirical data available to highlight the impact and

relationship of leadership styles and job satisfaction. The findings of the study will be

utilized for training educational leaders in Pakistan. Best fit style is the need of the

hour. It is difficult for teachers working under autocratic leadership style to adjust

themselves under democratic leaders or vice versa. The study is advantageous in

fitting the styles of leadership according to existing situation and help heads-teachers

relationship under respective styles. The effectiveness of subordinates under

leadership styles depends on the expertise of knowledge in the relevant field.

Visionary leaders control school better and hence their subordinates welcome them

with a smiling face. They take the responsibility in an effective way as a part and

parcel of school team. The environment under such leaders provides excellent

working conditions and makes their team more satisfied. A prominent purpose of this

study is to explore problems and hindrances that create difficulties in ef fectiveness. In

this way positive aspects will be highlighted for better performance and satisfaction of

teachers.

It is true that leader has some God gifted abilities to lead his nation. He may

see beyond the decades and take the good news of his success from the future. This
 6

study is a milestone in starting the degree programs for educational leaders to improve

their effectiveness.

Delimitations

The study was delimited to:

i. the autocratic and democratic leadership styles of school principals.

ii. the principa ls and teachers of male and female public sector secondary

schools located in the Punjab, province of Pakistan.

Operational Definitions

Autocratic Leadership Style

There are several synonymous terms used for autocratic leadership style. Main

terms are directive (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; McCrimmon, 2007; Somech &

Wenderow, 2006) and Authoritarian (US Army Handbook, 1973). Autocratic style

involves the leader to make decisions, wield supreme power, consign tasks for

members, and maintain a master-servant rela tionship with group members (Omolayo,

2007). In this research synonymous terms are used.

Democratic Leadership Style

It is also called participative (Somech & Wenderow, 2006) and consultative

leadership style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; McCrimmon, 2007; Sousa, 2003; US Army

Handbook, 1973). Democratic leadership style prefers consultative approach,

encourages members of group to participate in decisions, and maintains a master-

master relationship with subordinates (Omolayo, 2007).

Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

Teachers’ job satisfaction is an affective relationship of teacher with his/ her

teaching role and perceived relationship between the wants and offering from
 7

teaching (Zambylas & Papanastasiou, 2004). In this research it specifies for

secondary school teachers’ job satisfaction.

Principals

The male and female heads of public sector secondary schools in Punjab.

Rural Area Schools

The public sector secondary schools located outside tehsil and district

headquarters in all 36 districts in the Punjab province.

Urban Area Schools

The public sector secondary schools located in tehsil and district headquarters

in all districts of the Punjab province.

 8

CHAPTER 2

Review of Related Literature

Leadership has been the most popular research topics in organizational

behavior since the days of Greek philosophers (McShane & Glinow, 2004). With the

rise of twentieth century, the topic of leadership has been the object of extensive study.

Every organization and department is structured in groups of subordinates acting

under the control and guidance of leaders (Tsourvakas, Zotos, & Dekoulou, 2007).

Effective leadership must permeate in the organization, not reside in one or two

superstars at the top (Bateman & Snell, 2002). Leadership styles have a powerful

influence on individual and group behavior (Moorhead & Griffin, 1995). In productive

point of view, the most proficient style of leadership is autocratic. When the level of

work and morale is needed to maintain well, it is preferred to use democratic

leadership style effectively (Omolayo, 2007).

Definitions of Leadership

Leadership has been defined by many researchers and practitioners. The

definitions of effective leadership are estimated on the ground that every researcher

who has studied the concept defined it (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004). But none has

won wider acceptance (Dunnette & Hough, 1992). According to House, Javidan,

Hanges, and Dorfman (2002) an admitted definition of leadership is, “the ability to

influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute to the effectiveness and success of

the organizations of which they are members”. A common thread among various

definitions of leadership is social influence (Kreitner & Kinicky, 2004). To lead is one

of the building blocks for managerial success that improved the understanding in the

past few years (Sweeney & McFarlin, 2002). Leadership can be taught and learned
 9

(Bateman & Snell, 2002). According to Bennis & Nanus (1985) leadership seems to

be marshaling of skills possessed by a majority but used by minority. It is some thing

that can be learned by anyone taught to everyone and denied to no one. Any member

of the organization may become a leader, it is not the property of the executives (Isaac,

Zerbe, & Pitt, 2001; Pearce & Conger, 2003).

Casimir (2001) defined leadership style as, “a pattern of emphasis, indexed by

the frequency or intensity of specific leadership behaviors or attitudes which a leader

places on the different leadership functions”.

The leaders in successful situations work and share their sagacity with others

to galvanize and create conditions which prop up efforts of teachers ambitiously.

They make momentous decisions for rational stimulation, personal sustainability,

mutual ethnicity, and present instructional supervision (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).

The success of students is attributed to most powerful socioeconomic status

(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000) and assessment of paramount background factors related

to their performance (Gorard & Taylor, 2001). However, there is a need to explore

obvious relationship between the outcomes of students and collaborative, democratic,

and distributed leadership forms (Harris, 2004). The supervisors with an ideal

leadership style significantly affect employees’ job satisfaction with respect to self-

esteem, opportunities, expectations with job, self respect, fair dealing, and

participation (McKee, 1991).

Being social institutions schools are linked closely with patterns of power in

historical and social sense. As leadership is the combination of influence and power,

the concept of school change studies may disturbed seriously if we neglect it. So its

analysis is needed to be investigated with its allied concepts of legitimacy and

authority (Fleisch & Christie, 2004). The leaders who are effective and committed,
 10

motivate their teachers and learners, and retain professional academic environment in

their institutions (Barker 2001; Fernandez 2000). Leadership effectiveness is assessed

by employees’ commitment to leader, group cohesiveness, leader’s ability to advance,

and subordinates’ development (Sweeney & McFarlin, 2002).

Forms of Leadership

In the literature two general forms of leadership are formal and informal. In

formal form, a person is appointed to lead a group and officially bestows the power

and authority to guide and direct others in the organization. It may be informal and

materializes within the ranks of the group with the harmony of group members. It

unofficially accords a person the power and influence to guide and direct their

behaviors (Khanka, 2007; Moorhead & Griffin, 1995).

Features of Leadership

It is revealed from the literature that leadership is a personal quality and

willingness of people to follow a person as leader. It exists only with followers. It is

meaningless without adherents. Leadership involves readiness to accept complete

responsibility in all situations. Leadership styles may change under different

circumstances. Leaders stimulate the followers to strive willingly for attainment of

organizational objectives. A leader must has the ability to sway the behavior, attitude,

and belief of his/ her subordinates (Sahni, 2004). The success of a leader depends on

the acceptance of his leadership by the followers (Khanka, 2007).

 11

Functions of Leadership

A leader gives orders and instructions by formulating objectives for his group.

He maintains an office work, culture, discipline, and healthy communication in the

organization. He takes important decisions, listens to subordinates, and responds to

their needs. A leader is conscientious to inspire and motivate all members of his group

and represent them to the outside world.

Sources of Leader Power

It is obvious that leadership is the appropriate use of power. Two common

types of power are position and personal power. After defining power, the two types

of powers are explained briefly.

The capacity to affect the behavior of people is called power (Bartol, Tein,

Matthews, & Martin, 2003). Sometimes power comes from person’s position in the

organization, while other sources of power are based on personal cha racteristics. So

leader’s power exists in the forms of position and personal (Daft, 2005).

Position Power

The traditional manager’s power in the organization granted him/ her authority

to reward or punish subordinates in order to alter their attitude. It c omes from external

sources. Legitimate, reward, and coercive power all are common types of position

power.

Legitimate power. Power that stems from a formal management position in an

organization and the authority granted to it.

Reward power. Power that result from the authority to bestow rewards on

other people.
 12

Coercive power. Power that stem from the authority to punish or

recommend punishment.

Personal Power

It is based on an internal source like special knowledge and personal traits. It

exists in the form of expert and referent power.

Expert power. Power resulting from special knowledge or skill in the tasks

performed by subordinates.

Referent power. It belongs to personality characteristics that command

subordinates’ identification, respect, and admiration so they wish to emulate

the leader (Daft, 2005).

The basis of power have been subdivided into two more general categories

refer to as strong and soft. Coercive and legitimate power falls in the strong category

in which strict rules are obeyed through the threat of painful consequences. On the

other hand, referent and reward power fall in the soft category in which others are

essentially free to decide whether to accept the advice or counsel (Raven,

Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998). The two types of power are the distinction

between autocratic and democratic leadership styles (Lippit & White, 1960).

Chronological Emergence of Leadership Studies

With the passage of time researchers have tried to study leadership with

different aspects. On the basis of extensive study of leadership literature, here is a

brief history of these studies.

Name of study Primary writers/ Researchers / Year

? IOWA studies Lewin, Lippitt, & White (1939).

? Leadership factors Stogdill (1948).

 13

? Ohio State studies Halpin & Winer (1957).

? Theory X & Y McGregor (1957).

? Performance maintenance Misumi, Nakano, & Ueno (1958).

? Michigan studies Likert (1961).

? Four-factor theory Bowers & Seashore (1966).

? Contingency theories Fiedler (1967); (1960-70).

? Leadership grid styles Black & Mouton (1968).

? Situational leadership Hersey & Blanchard (1969).

? Path-goal theory Evans (1970).

? Leader -Member Exchange (1970).

? Substitutes for Leadership (1970).

? Decision Making Model Vroom & Yetton (1973).

? Servant Leadership Greenleaf (1977).

? Charismatic Leadership (1970 - 1980).

? Theory Z Ouchi (1981).

? Transformational leadership Bass & Avolio (1994); Burns (1978).

? Distributed Leadership Gronn (2003).

Perspectives of Leadership

Leadership literature can also be studied in its five perspectives (Kanungo,

1998; Yukl, 2001). They help us in understanding this complex issue (McShane &

Glinow, 2004). They are:

i. Competency perspective

ii. Behavioral perspective

iii. Contingency perspective

 14

iv. Transformational perspective

v. Implicit leadership perspective

Prominent Studies on Leadership

As already mentioned the topic of leadership is very vast. In next few pages the

most prominent studies about leadership styles are explained.

The IOWA Leadership Studies

The series of pioneer leadership studies that had a lasting impact were

conducted in late 1930s by Lippitt and White under the direction of Kurt Lewin at

IOWA University. Lewin was recognized as the father of group dynamics and

cognitive theorist. They identified three types of leadership named authoritarian,

democratic, and laissez faire.The authoritarian leader did not allow participation. This

leader gave individual attention when praised and criticized but tried to be friendly or

impersonal rather than openly hostile. The democratic leader encouraged group

discussion and decision making. He tried to be objective in his praise or criticism.

The laissez faire leader gave complete freedom to the group. He essentially

provided no leadership. Under experimental conditions, the three leadership styles

were manipulated to show their effects on satisfaction and frustration. Some results

were clear while others were inconsistent. One definite finding was overall

performance for the democratic leader. The experiments were designed primarily to

examine pattern of aggressive behavior. The researchers found that the boys subjected

to the autocratic leaders reacted in one of the two ways either aggressive or

apathetically. The laissez faire leadership climate produced the greatest number of

aggressive acts from the group. The democratically led group fell between the one

extremely aggressive group and the four apathetic groups under the autocratic leaders.
 15

The studies were valuable for analyzing leadership from the standpoint of

scientific methodology and showed that different styles of leadership produced

different complex reactions from the same groups (Sahni, 2004).

The Ohio State Leadership Studies

Researchers at Ohio State University in USA designed a questionnaire which

was administered in both military and industrial setting to assess subordinates

perceptions about their leaders’ actual behavior. They concluded that there were two

broad dimensions of leadership, initiating structure and consideration. The first one

was also known as task oriented behavior that implied set goals, defined and

organized tasks, determined work relationships, and controlled behavior for workers.

Consideration was known as employee oriented behavior referred to friendship, trust,

and support of leader toward machines and group. Such leaders believed in

motivating subordinates rather controlling them.

Findings of Ohio state leadership studies. The Research on Ohio State

Leadership Studies revealed that absenteeism and grievance were significantly linked

to consideration, but negatively correlated with performance. On the other hand, the

performance of employees was optimistically associated to Initiating structure but had

negative effects on absenteeism and grievances. When both dimensions were high, the

satisfaction and performance of employees also enhanced. But in some cases, high

productivity was accompanied by absenteeism and grievances.

 16

Michigan Studies on Leadership Styles

When lea dership styles were the main emphasis of the researchers, in Michigan

University these styles were being studied also for the purpose of group effectiveness.

One of the most pioneer researchers Likert (1961) identified two major styles of

leadership, employee orientation and production orientation. The employee

orientation style dealt with the aspect of individual’s job. Such leader posed

confidence on the subordinates. They felt free to discuss matters related to their jobs

with the leader. In production orientation style leader had emphasized on technical

aspects of job and production. Subordinates were treated as tools to accomplish the

organizational goals. While relating these orientations to employees’ performance,

Likert found that employee oriented style resulted in higher performance compared to

production oriented. However, he failed to find direct correlation between satisfaction

and productivity of employees.

Evaluation of Michigan leadership studies. The Michigan studies were

criticized because they failed to suggest whether leader behavior was a cause or

effect. They did not clarify whether employee centered leadership made the group

productive or whether the high productive group induced the leader to be employee

centered. They also ignored the personal and group characteristics of subordinates’

tasks and situational variables. The behavioral styles suggested by Michigan studies

had been termed as static. A leader was supposed to follow either of the two styles.

But in practice, a style may succeeds in one situation and fails in other. Moreover

leaders don’t restrict themselves to a particular style. They adopted both orientations

in varying degree to suit the particular situation.

 17

Difference between Leadership and Management

Some people treat both terms as synonymous. However, leadership differs

from management. Leadership involves influencing people towards the attainment of

group goals while, “management involves planning, organizing, staffing, directing,

and controlling” group activities to accomplish organizational goals. In some,

managers manage things while leaders lead people (Bennis, 1989). Bennis and Nanus

(1985) have differentiated leadership from management with the statement that,

“managers are people who do things right, and leaders are people who do the right

things”. Management manages the ladder of success efficiently. The leadership role is

to determine the tilting of ladder aligned with the right wall. Management depends on

formal power of position to sway the subordinates, while leadership evolves from

social influence (Zaleznik, 1992). Leadership involves neither force nor coercion. A

manager who relies solely on force and formal authority to direct the behavior of

subordinates is not exercising leadership (Conger, 1989).

Difference between Leadership Style and Behavior

After World War second, researchers turned their attention from leadership

traits to leadership behaviors. They soon found distinctive patterns. Some leaders

were task driven, focused on the technical challenges of reaching organizational

goals. Others more concerned with the human dimensions of the job concentrated on

motivation and communication.

Eventually these findings led to the notion of style. It was the characteristic

way in which a leader uses power, makes decision, and interacts with others. Style

quickly gained acceptance as an important element in leadership, partly because it

provided an understandable explanation of every body’s experience (Smith & Piele,

 18

2006). Kunwar (2001) cited the findings of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1967)

about the concepts of leadership styles and leadership behaviors. Leadership style was

an innate, relatively enduring attribute of our personality which provides us

motivation and determines our general orientation when exercising leadership.

Leadership behavior on the other hand, referred to particular acts which one could

perform or not perform if one has knowledge and skills.

Leadership Styles

The leadership style of a leader is the combination of behaviors as task and

relationship oriented (Bruno & Lay, in press). Good leadership is about action, not

position. Never confuse the two. If someone wants to become a good leader, he must

stress on actions rather than talking. Always behave like a leader. People are

interested in your actions rather skills.

The theories about leadership have direct implication for what the style leader

uses in managing employees (Kunwar, 2001). The term style is almost comparable to

the manner where the leader influences subordinates (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1996).

The ways in which leaders influence their subordinates are called styles of leadership.

There are three basic styles of leadership:

1. Autocratic or Authoritarian Style

2. Democratic or Participative Style

3. Laissez faire or Free rein Style (Khanka, 2007).

According to Kunwar (2001) two broad educational leadership styles are

autocratic or authoritarian and democratic or participative.

 19

Autocratic or Authoritarian Leadership Style

There are variations in autocratic or authoritarian style. They are self-centered

and missionary authoritarians. There are overt and covert authoritarians. One thing

common among all authoritarians, they always want to remain in the centre stage and

love to wield power over subordinates. They like to keep control in their hands. Their

vision is dictated by their own personal experience and reflections. Missionary

authoritarian do not believe in dishonesty for their personal gains but they are myopic

and consider themselves best in intentions, thought, and work. Some times they

become unrealistic due to narrow personalized vision. They make their followers

dependent in terms of ideas, functions, and progress. Self-centered authoritarians

maintain a distance from followers to hide their professional weakness and wield

power by virtue of their office. They are always in checking and inspection mode to

find faults and weaknesses in their followers and create tension and division among

them. Overt authoritarian are known as controlling authority and demonstrate it

through explanations, warnings, and dismissals. They follow rules and regulations as

per book and express their likes and dislikes openly. Humanism is a missing word in

their dictionaries. But they are certainly better than covert authoritarians. They present

themselves openly and they are, what they are. Covert authoritarians are more

dangerous. They pose friendly understanding and concerned. They encourage

discussion and consultation but manipulate it to their own advantage. They mix up to

a certain extent and demonstrate an open door policy yet their ideas and motives are

fixed, rigid, and highly personalized. They are excellent manipulators and excel in the

art of communication (Kunwar, 2001). The leader compelled followers to obey his

orders completely. The autocratic leadership style is apt for those followers who are

inexperienced and incompetent. The leader wants to be active and dominant and
 20

highly competent for making a right decision. However autocratic leadership style is

subjected to several limitations as low morale and job dissatisfaction. Employees’

efficiency tends to decline over period. Potential manager-led employees do not get

opportunity to exhibit their capabilities (Khanka, 2007).

Democratic or Participative Leadership Style

The other style is democratic. There are variations in this style too. Some

democratic leaders believe in consultation and negotiation but like to keep the final

decision by themselves. They provide an open forum for discussion, listen patiently,

take notes and make changes in their opinions where necessary. Some democratic

leaders believe in sharing and participatory approach. They see themselves as team

leaders and are ready to let others lead in certain areas. Like constructivist leadership

approach they allow others to act as leaders. They follow an open door policy in the

real sense. They believe in shared vision and participatory decision making approach.

They are open to suggestions, innovations, and change. They do not believe in

inspection and checking but in support and me ntoring (Kunwar, 2001). The leader

makes decision after consultation with subordinates. The social and ego needs of

employees become satisfied in participative decision making. They provide

subordinates opportunity to increase their potential academic responsibilities, job

satisfaction, and morale. Subordinates’ participation in decision making helps in

making right decision because “two heads are better than one”. It is suitable for the

situation where subordinates are competent and experienced.

Democratic leadership style is considered as best style in all circumstances.

Decision making in this style is time consuming. The dominant subordinates may

manipulate decision in their favour. All group members are equally responsible for
 21

implementing decisions. Sometimes the decisions taken become the distorted one

because “many cooks spoil the broth” (Khanka, 2007).

Laissez Faire Leadership Style

It is the opposite of autocratic style. The leader feels free and the followers get

pleasure to decide. This style is suitable when leader is able to fully delegate the

powers of decision making to his/her subordinates. Subordinates are also well

competent and knowledgeable. Organizational goals and objectives are well

communicated to employees. This style has limitation also because it creates chaos

and mismanagement in decision making (Khanka, 2007).

However it will be wrong to assume that leaders are strictly divided in black

and white, they are mostly in grey areas. Situational leadership is generally the norm

in most of the situations. A leader can be authoritarian, democratic, participatory, and

manipulative in different situations. Educational leadership is different from corporate

leadership. As the climate and culture is different. Even within educational contexts

different styles might be more effective or otherwise. For example, a missionary

authoritarian (benevolent autocrat) is more successful in new educational set up where

most of the subordinates need to be trained. Democratic leadership is likely to be

more s uccessful in a comparatively older and well organized educational set up.

Transactional leadership (closed democratic or open authoritarian) may be more

suitable for an educational organization where maintaining status-quo is the main

concern (Kunwar, 2001).

Women and Leadership

Gender has been one of the important research topics of all researchers in the

studies of leadership styles through the world. The reason behind was, the increase of

women in the workforce has generated much interest in understandin g the similarities
 22

and differences between male and female leaders (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). A study

conducted by Deji and Makinde (2006) illustrated that female leaders feel free to

express their ideas with their employees as compared to male leaders. T here has been

heated debate among researchers about differences in gender leadership styles. Some

claimed that female leaders have innate traits and behaviors that are apt for relation-

oriented leadership. They nurture their followers with cooperative styles. On the other

hand, males prefer “command and control militaristic leadership style”. Rosener

(1990, 1995) has identified that both performed opposite patterns of leadership. Yet

the style of women is most appropriate in modern organization.

Men and women were seen as displaying more task and social leadership

respectively (Shelly & Munroe, 1999). Women used democratic or participative style

and men used autocratic or directive leadership style (Eagly, Karau, & Johnson,

1992). Using data from actual performance evaluations, one study found that when

rated by peers, subordinates, and bosses, woman managers score comparatively better

than men in motivating, communication, and listening (Sharpe, 2000). Democratic

head was an ideal head for both male and fema le teachers (Tasnim, 2006). Women

have been able to vie with males even in male dominated professions like commerce,

engineering, and medical (Al-Lamki, 1999; Hanslin, 2004; Okpara, 1996; Opeke,

2002). They have overcome misconceptions like not to participate in decision-making

process. In the workplace settings, women’s management styles differed with men

due to nurturing and caring (Women in Business, 1997). Women principals’

leadership style places a high value to attend the staff, pupils, and administrative

issues (Hall, 1996; Lad 2000; Regan & Brooks, 1995). Cooper (1992) identified that

men manage their employees by chastisement while women by incentives. Philips

(1995) has investigated that women treat their subordinates like family members. Men
 23

and women were seen as displaying more task and social leadership respectively

(Shelly & Munroe, 1999).

Leaders make a difference and performance in organization. Their style of

functioning determines the impact on their own and subordinates effectiveness. The

leadership styles of men and women can be effective but different in their

functioning. Meta-analysis of autocratic and democratic leadership styles on group

productivity and membership satisfaction has inveterated the significance of

restrained situation (Foels, Driskell, Mullen, & Salas, 2000; Gastil, 1994). Grogan

(2000) concluded that women in management were still being viewed as women first

and administrators second. However, the assumption that democratic and

participative style is specific or female leaders has not yet to be explored due to

contradiction to cede power to women. While conducting a study in Nigeria, Deji and

Makinde (2006) identified a positive difference among genders to express their

personal feelings.

Leadership in an International Context

It is an admitted fact that deficiency in devoted leadership prevails all over the

world. Hence different countries have different leadership styles on the basis of their

cultural associations. Every organization and institution likes to promote the

satisfaction and effectiveness of its employees. Societal values and beliefs of a

specific region and country play a significant role. The appropriateness and

effectiveness of leadership style depend on the operating situation in which a leader

matches his/ her leadership style with the task of their followers (Hersey, Blanchard,

& Johnson, 2001). Directive leadership behaviors have prevailed in Mexico and

Taiwan, while in South Korea and United States the dominant leading style is

participative. Only participative leadership style has a direct and significant affiliation
 24

with performance in United States. While in Mexico, a positive relationship with

performance was investigated under directive and supportive leadership (Dickson,

Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003).

Leaders perform a vital role in decision making to influence and agree people

about what and how their needs to be done effectively and towards the

accomplishment of shared goals (Yukl, 2002). Situational variables are emphasized in

American participatory theories of leadership. In contrast, Japanese theories are

hubbed on communication functions of leaders in organizations. However, in Taiwan

authoritarian leadership style was the focal point (Wu, 2006). Redding and Wong

(1986) as well as Bond and Hwang (1986) explored that within Chinese companies

the preferred leadership style is directive and authoritarian. An updated study

conducted on Taiwan and the United States found that Taiwanese popular decision-

making leadership style was participative as compared to autocratic style (Wu &

Stewart, 2003). Hofstede (2001) claimed that individualistic culture is highly

dominant United States, while in Japan and Taiwan, collectivistic cultures nourish.

Due to inconsistent situational variables it is difficult to generalize the findings

of participative leadership studies which influence the success of the style. This style

is needed to examine from cultural viewpoint. By summing up, the priority of school

leadership team is to keep teachers satisfied on their job (De Nobile & McCormick,

2005).
 25

Research on Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles

Leaders are a part and parcel in the workplace and have a lasting effect while

operating the organizations. Most of them are naive about leadership practices and

their impact on employees’ satisfaction level (Elpers & Westhuis, 2008). When

leaders deal with employees, they engage in the pattern of behaviors. Lewin, Lippitt,

and White (1939) explored autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles.

Autocratic leadership style maintains a master-servant relationship with members of

the group. In contrast, democratic style used of consultative approach and maintain a

master-master relationship with group members. The laissez-faire leadership style

allows complete freedom to all workers. It is obvious that in all managerial situations,

single best leadership style is difficult to decide (Mullins, 1999; Omolayo, 2004;

Vecchio, 2002). Mixed leadership styles are more successful in many situations as

compared to single leadership style (Keedy, 1993). While discussing on leadership

styles, Bass (1990) concluded that autocratic cluster includes authoritarian, directive,

and coercive styles, whereas the democratic cluster includes democratic, participative,

and consultative. Likert (1967) has claimed that superior style in all situations is

participative (democratic).

The direct successful performance and effectiveness is jointly credited to team

and leadership process (Morgeson, 2005; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002; Zaccaro,

Ardison, & Orvis, 2004). Employees showed greater job satisfaction, feel respected,

independent, and express themselves freely while working under participative leaders

(Kahai, et al., 1997). The leaders create an environment in which workers are

inspired, motivated, and feel accomplished (Bass, 1997).

According to Smith (1998) if the employees and leader relationship is positive,

the task will be highly structured and employees show high effectiveness. The
 26

democratic leaders involve group members in discussion and motivate their team.

Schwartz (1987) found that the workers under democratic organizations feel high

acquiescent and showed annoyance and antagonism under autocratic organizations.

They once in a blue moon partake in the decision making (Hayers, 2000). The

evidence shows that principals adopt autocratic leadership approaches at critical

situations (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). O rganizational characteristics and

teacher’s performance have affected directly by Principal’s leadership. It affects

student’s performance (Cheng, 2002). Principals of public sector schools have

democratic leadership styles while those of private sector have autocratic leadership

styles. The performance of autocratic leaders dominated over democratic leaders

(Iqbal, 2005; Mahmood, 1995).

The productivity, satisfaction, involvement, and commitment of followers are

attributed to democratic leadership style (Hackman & Johnson, 1996). The

participative leadership style is dominated over directive leadership style in the long

run effectiveness of organization (Bryk, Easton, Kerbow, Rollow, & Sebring, 1993;

Hargreaves, 1994). Subordinates showed greater satisfaction under democratic style

of leadership (Bass, 1990). The momentous hitch to democratic style of leadership is

lengthy and time consuming process. However the leadership productivity is

increased by participatory supervision (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003).

The control and participation are the key characteristics of both styles.

Participation is a heart of democratic style, while a top-down style and directive

control are the main characteristics of autocratic style (Luthar, 1996). Participative or

democratic leadership style is a joint decision making process (Koopman &

Wierdsma, 1998). Directive or autocratic leade rship provide only leader’s vision

(Fiedler, 1995; Sagie, et al., 2002).

 27

Principals’ leadership capacities in urban settings are significantly higher than

in sub-urban and in rural settings. Schools in urban settings have advantages in terms

of funding, cultural and physical environment, teacher and student quality, and

community support systems. Principals in urban settings enjoy better professional

development opportunities, higher salaries and comfortable living status than their

sub-urban and rural counterparts (Hannum, 2003; Luo, 2004). According to Evans

(1998) head teachers with a consultative and collaborative leadership styles were

more successful in achieving greater job satisfaction and morale from teaching staff.

Bass (1990) concluded that leadership practices fall on a continuum from purely

autocratic to purely democratic. Directive style of leadership is suitable in the

situation in which the leader is more competent than followers. If the followers are

more competent and knowledgeable, then participative style of leadership is favourite

(Murphy & Fiedler, 1992; Peterson, 1997; Somech & Wenderow, 2006). In the past,

the success of a school was dependent on very strong, clear-cited, and decisive

leadership (Morris, 2000). The head teacher is expected to be the prime agent

articulating, embodying, and implementing the schools mission and ethos (Sullivan,

1999). The selection of autocratic and democratic leadership styles is provoked by the

reality that these leadership styles influence subordinate’s satisfaction as well as

performance.
 28

Job Satisfaction

Definitions of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined as, “a pleasurable or positive emotional state

resulting from an appraisal of ones job or job experiences” (Akhtar, 2000; Arches,

1991; Butler, 1990).

Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) defined job satisfaction as, “a combination of

cognitive and affective reactions to the differential perceptions of what an employee

wants to receive compared with what he or she actually receives”.

Teachers’ job satisfaction refers to, “ teacher’s affective relation to his or her

teaching role and is a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants

from teaching and what one perceives it is offering to a teacher” (Zembylas &

Papanastasiou, 2004).

Significance of Job Satisfaction

Work plays a prominent role in our lives. It occupies more time as compared

to other tasks and forms the sound basis of our economical lifestyle. Many specialists

have studied this interesting concept to investigate the perception and attitude towards

it (Koustelios, 2001). The job satisfaction as well as performance is affected by

positive match between the job requirements and individual abilities. When

employees are able to fulfill their requirements, they perform their jobs well and

remain happy as their skills and abilities are matched (Brkich, Jeffs, & Carless, 2002;

Singh & Greenhaus, 2004). Motivation leads to good performance and performance

leads to job satisfaction. Mind satisfaction is the birth right of workers des pite of race,

cast, religion, and location of worksite.

 29

The performance of satisfied workers remains high as compared to less

satisfied because it is an enviable aspiration of organizations (Chambers, 1999).

Research focusing specifically on the principals’ job satisfaction in secondary schools

identified several sources of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. High school

principals expressed satisfaction in the areas of variability of tasks, amount of

recognition, development of personal relations, hiring of new staff, instituting

program changes, and working with students. Major sources of dissatisfaction were

sacrifices in personal life, difficulties with existing policies, lack of achievement and

opportunities for growth, limited autonomy, problems with higher authorities, and

central office personnel (Merrill & Pounder, 1999). However, these studies did not

differentiate between female and male high school principals in describing the sources

of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

According to Zigarreli (1996) the job satisfaction of teachers is a noteworthy

predictor in effective schools. Hall, Pearson, and Carroll (1992) identified that less

satisfied teachers and negative perception towards teaching intended to leave the

profession. It was also allied with administrative performance, quality of teachers,

organizational commitment and performance, academic achievement, behavior of

students, and turnover (Mathieu, 1991; Ostroff, 1992). The impact of organizational

and demographic variables on commitment is closely linked with the dual role of job

satisfaction (Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994; Price, 1997).

Factors of Job Satisfaction

The factors of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction have been investigated by

many researchers (Farber, 1991; Friedman & Farber, 1992; Shann, 1998; Spear,

Gould, & Lee, 2000; Thompson, McNamara, & Hoyle, 1997). Both factors affect the

job satisfaction of teachers in all administrative jobs (Papanastasiou & Zembylas,

 30

2005). The intrinsic factors are associated with job itself and extrinsic factors related

to work environment where it is performed (Bogler, 2001; Dinham & Scott, 2000).

According to Garcia-Bernal, Gargallo-Castel, Marzo-Navarro, and Rivera -Torres

(2005) the economic aspects, working relations and conditions, and individual

fulfillment all determined job satisfaction level. Reiner and Zhao (1999) analyzed the

job satisfaction into individual characteristics and job position. Intrinsic factors

inspire people to choose teaching while extrinsic conditions instigate them to stay in

the profession (Perie, et al., 1997). Following are the important factors revealed in

literature. The factors affecting the job satisfaction can be broadly categorized as

environmental, psychological, and demographic. They were the main focus of

numerous studies conducted in UK over the years (Halpin, 2001; Ma & McMillan,

1999; Oshagbemi, 1998; Scot & Dinham, 2003; Spector, 1997).

Interpersonal Factors

Interpersonal relationships are the key elements in the study of job satisfaction

which make social and support network for employees. They include supervisory

relationship and social interaction with co-workers. The co-workers’ social support

has been studied for decades due to its significance. Research has shown that workers

who have friends and related to social group were more satisfied (Green, 2000). On

the other hand, less satisfied employees lack social support and bore more stress

(Maynard, 1986).

Intrinsic factors

About one third of our life is being spent while working. It is the source of

identity and existence (Bruce & Blackburn, 1992). The intrinsic factors have their

own significance regardless of attractive salary, safety, and fringe benefits. Intrinsic

rewards are more valuable than monetary incentives (Martinez-Ponz, 1990). Stewart
 31

(2000) stated that independent workers feel more satisfaction and perform well.

Intrinsic satisfaction emerges from classroom activities, personal relationships with

students, intellectual challenge of teaching, autonomy, and independence

(Papanastasiou & Papanastasiou, 1998; Shann, 1998).

External rewards like pay, incentives, and status also attract few people

towards the profession (Dinham & Scott, 1998, 2000). A study on job satisfaction

conducted in America (NCES, 1997) revealed that mana gerial support, school

environment, and teacher sovereignty were strongly linked with teacher satisfaction.

The issue of teachers’ turnover was closely associated with school management,

student inspiration, and disciplinary problems (Whitener, et al., 1997). One study

found that teaching for intrinsic reasons make the teachers more satisfied (Zembylas

& Papanastasiou, 2004, 2006).

Extrinsic Factors

Extrinsic factors associated with salary, support from administrator, work

load, extra curricular assignments , and perception of society about teachers (Shen,

1997; Thompson, et al., 1997). Now a days workers consider extrinsic factors like

better pay, prestigious life style, and job security (Andrews, Faubion, & Palmer, 2002;

Jennings, 2000).

Research conducted by Houston, Meyer, and Paewai (2006) resulted that

university academics were dissatisfied with extrinsic rewards and relatively more

satisfied with intrinsic aspects. Blandford and Grundy (2000) have pointed out that

burnout and job satisfaction were negatively correlated with poor working conditions,

relationships among staff, poor administration and status, teachers’ relationships with

parents and students, and criticism from society. The causes of teachers low job

satisfaction are organizational change (Dinham & Scot, 2000); over workload,
 32

increasing bureaucracy, and poor discipline (Moriarty, Edmond, Blatchford, &

Martin, 2001; Personnel Today, 2003; Silliote, 2003); styles of leadership and

management (Schultz & Teddlie,1999); job related stress (Evans, 1998); lower value

placed on teaching as a profession (Evans, 1997; Halpin, 2001); increasing class sizes

(MacLean, 1992); possible conflict between work and family life (Spear, et al. 2000);

excessive media criticism on teachers working in failing schools (National Union of

Teachers [NUT], 2001; Scot & Dinham, 2003); as well as pay (Chung, Dolton, &

Tremayne, 2004).

Theories of Job Satisfaction

Being a popular aspect of life, almost in every discipline job satisfaction is

examined. There are numerous theories in which job satisfaction has been

investigated and explored by many researchers and scholars. They have studied them

under three main paradigms that are most famous in the literature. The first one that

met by the job is the need for development and self-actualization. It is known as

content theory. The second one is about the personal expectations and values that are

needed to meet for individuals. It is referred as process theory. The last one is about

the situational theories in which the organiza tional characteristics are matched with

the wellbeing of an individual’s own uniqueness to interact or mesh (Worrell, 2004).

The prominent theories which laid the foundation of job satisfaction are as under:
 33

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Maslow’s theory is based on two assumptions; people always want more and

prioritized their requirements in order of significance (Smith & Cronje, 1992). While

studying Maslow’s theory, Schultz, Bagraim, Potgieter, Viedge, and Werner (2003)

and Smith and Cronje (1992) summarized these needs as:

Physiological needs. These are the basic need known as the biological needs

such as the need for water, food, rest, exercise, and sex. Once these needs are fulfilled

they have no longer influenced the behavior.

Safety needs. They include the need for security, insurance, medical aid, and

protection against physical and emotional harm.

Social needs. People wished for love, friendship, acceptance, and

understanding from other people.

Ego and esteem needs. The fourth level of needs is the need for self-respect,

recognition by others, confidence, and achievement.

Self -actualization needs. This is the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of

needs, and leads to the full development of a person's potential. On this level a person

become self actualized and utilize all talents well and become creative.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

The most widely utilized theory in educational setting is Herzberg’s two-factor

theory presented by Herzberg with his co researchers (Derlin & Schneider, 1994;

Dinham & Scott, 1998, 2000; Mercer, 1993; Scott, Cox, & Dinham, 1999). Herzberg

(1966) has conducted his studies in different situations. He identified job satisfaction

and job dissatisfaction as split constructs (De Nobile & McCormick, 2005). He

proposed in his theory of Motivation-Hygiene that job and job environment lead to

satisfaction or dissatisfaction due to certain elements. This theory explained that

 34

satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors were different to each other. They made

employees good or bad about their work. Satisfied employees attributed internal

factors for satisfaction and external factors for dissatisfaction. Motivators are the

factors that contribute to satisfaction, while job dissatisfaction factors are called

hygiene. They are renamed as intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) factors

(Schulz, et al., 2003). The level of performance is prompted by motivational factors

that are listed as satisfiers. The word hygiene is borrowed from medical that averts

our performance and are known as dissatisfiers. The job content or intrinsic

components lead to workers’ satisfaction and job environment or extrinsic

components create dissatisfaction.

Herzberg has identified the work, success, appreciation, liability, and

opportunity for development as satisfiers. He listed the rules, management, pay,

mutual relations, and working conditions as dissatisfiers. Although his studies were

conducted in industrial setting yet evidences exist in education.

His studies took major criticisms as una ble to support the findings due to

inadequate empirical data. He believed that employees have same nature, and really

they were the theories of satisfaction rather than motivation (Hansom, 1996). In spite

of major criticisms, Herzberg and his associates contributed significantly in under

standing the concept of job satisfaction.

Alderfer’s ERG Theory

Alderfer’s theory is referred to as ERG theory and is based on, “existence,

relatedness, and growth needs”. Existence is the basic requirement of individuals like

safety and physiological needs. Relatedness is about positive interpersonal relations

equivalent to Maslow’s social and esteem needs. Growth is the internal desire for

individual development same as Maslow’s self-actualization (Bull, 2005).

 35

McClelland ’s Theory of Needs

This theory focuses on the need for achievement, power, and affiliation. Need

for achievement is a drive to maintain standards for successful. Need for power is to

let others behave in such a way that they do not behave otherwise. Need for affiliation

is to behave friendly (Luthans, 1998).

Measurement of Job Satisfaction

Many researchers have identified job satisfaction as a global notion which has

different aspects (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). The job satisfaction is

measured by interviews and observation on workplace. In developing countries very

few studies were conducted to explore the sources and impact of teachers’ job

satisfaction (Garrett, 1999; Hean & Garrett, 2001). Many researchers have used an in-

depth survey instrument (Spector, 1997). Questionnaires are preferable, less biased,

confidential, easily distributed, and saved time and money as compared to conducting

interviews (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). They are able to examine the hypothesized

facets. As there is no common agreement with theory and definition, this

contradiction leads to weight and interpret the results differently. The widely used

survey instruments are, “The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), the Job Descriptive Index

(JDI), and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)”. In addition researchers

have also designed their own instruments according to the situations and dimensions

they intend to measure. Cultural values make it difficult to compare job satisfaction

across countries (Spector, 2001).

 36

Dimensions of Job Satisfaction

Several dimensions have been identified relevant to this study are given here.

Salary

A fundamental variable in the study of job satisfaction is salary (Derlin &

Schnieder, 1994). According to Luthans (1998) salaries have an important role to

fulfill basic needs of workers and satisfied higher order needs. Job satisfaction is

significantly effected by financial benefits. In a socialized society in which money

and security are the sole criterions used to gauge the worth of people. The better

monetary rewards make employees less worry about their pecuniary status. They also

enhance their self-worth in the organization (Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Lubbock,

2001). The teachers leave the profession due to poor salary and become dissatisfied in

urban, public, and private schools (Ingersoll, 2001; Perie, Baker, & Whitener, 1997).

The correlation between job satisfaction and salary was more prominent in the studies

conducted during the last 80 years. The key factor between salary and job satisfaction

was social comparison. When the compensation of work performed by the employees

is too large or small, their expectations changed (Worrell, 2004). Employees were less

satisfied with salary in the sectors of health and education (Gazioglu & Ta nsel, 2006).

Job satisfaction and pay has positive relationship in current studies (Diaz-Serrano &

Cabral Vieira, 2005; Lucas, Babakus, & Ingram, 1990). The teachers do part time jobs

to make ends meet even outside their profession due to fiscal constraint because they

were less satisfied with their pay (Hean & Garrett, 2001). Further, it is more difficult

to handle the students of poorer academic backgrounds who have fewer expectations

of being able to reach higher education. The teachers in public sector are paid less and

employees in private industries comparatively earn more that is why they are
 37

dissatisfied with their occupation. (Murnane, Singer, Willet, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991;

Stinebrickner, 1998). Klassen and Anderson (2009) showed that Job satisfaction level

of secondary school teachers in 2007 was lower than it was in the past. Males rated

salary while females rated larger class size as their top job dissatisfaction sources.

Promotion

Promotion and advancement is a basic incentive for human beings. Promotion

policy, suitability of the desired post, and responsibilities are the main predictors of

satisfaction. As promotion demands a greater responsibility and complex tasks,

employees wish to be promoted only if they feel that promotion policy is fair

otherwise they prefer to work at the same post. Promotion was directly related to

social status, increased responsibility, personal growth, and opportunities for

promotion (Robbins, 2003; Tolbert & Moen, 1998). The teachers who changed school

frequently and did not enjoy promotion are less satisfied as compared to teachers who

have received promotion and never moved (Miller & Travers, 2005; Robertson,

Smith, & Cooper, 1992).

Supervision

The nature of supervision has positively related to job satisfaction. Better

relationships with supervisor leads to job satisfaction. They include productive

feedback, efficient communication, and significance of quality rather than quantity

(Bruce & Blackburn, 1992; Schroffel, 1999). Schroffel (1999) further stated that

competent supervisors treat their employees with respect and fulfill their functional

and interpersonal needs. More experienced employees’ desire less supervision and

less experienced employees prefer more supervision. Supervisors who encourage their

employees’ participation in decisions maintain higher levels of satisfaction (Chieffo,

 38

1991). Rettig (2000) has investigated that supervisory practices foster employees in

motivation, stimulation, and teaching performance. Supervision, pay, promotion

opportunities, relation with co-workers, and class room practices are significantly

related to job satisfaction (Khanka, 2007; Ninomiya & Okato, 1990; Robbins, 2003;

Sim, 1990).

Work

The work plays a significant role in enhancing job satisfaction level

(Moorhead & Griffen, 1992). The employees prefer those jobs that facilitate their

skills and abilities independently to satisfy their performance. The employees

experienced pleasure and satisfaction under moderate conditions (Robbins, 1998).

According to Blandford (2000) the satisfaction at work is enhanced by helping

followers and promoting the growth of students. It has important suggestion for head

teachers’ and teachers’ behaviors at work. The most frequent sources of satisfaction

are teaching students, interaction wit h colleagues, better classroom discipline, greater

opportunity for developing young lives, and universal gratification of teaching,

despite the consequences of country context (Hean & Garrett, 2001).

Work Group or Colleagues

Co-workers or colleagues are a part and parcel for employees at work. The

degree of job satisfaction is related to employees’ opportunities for interaction with

others on the job. The job satisfaction level of individuals belongs to a function of

personal and group characteristics (Mowdy & Sutton, 1993). The societal aspect of

work has an important affect on attitude and behavior of workers (Marks, 1994).

Better interaction both with supervisors and co-workers increase the level of job

satisfaction positively (Lee & Gao, 2005; Park & Deitz, 2006; Wharton & Baron,
 39

1991). University employees show higher satisfaction by working with students and

peers (Schroder, 2008). On a sample of primary school teachers, Menon and Christou

(2002) identified principals’ and teachers relationship as a momentous source of job

satisfaction. Recognition, support, and respect from colleagues and superiors cultivate

a feeling of job satisfaction (Dinham & Scot, 1998; Evans, 1998; Voluntary Services

Organization, 2000).

Working Conditions

Moorhead and Griffen (1992) identified working conditions as an important

feature that impact employees’ job satisfaction. People feel comfortable while

working in clean and gracious environment otherwise it is difficult to accomplish

tasks (Luthans, 1998). The prominent reasons to quit the profession are workload,

transfers, working environment, and discipline problems among learners (Bishay,

1996). Working conditions in backward schools are unfavorable towards learning and

teaching (Mwamwenda, 1995; Ngidi & Sibaya, 2002; Steyn & van Wyk, 1999). In

Pakistan inadequate working and living conditions create a pitiable situation for

teachers. Lack of transport availability, security threats, and residential amenities in

remote rural areas are big issues. Female teachers are specially a victim of such

circumstances. The ratio of students and teachers in secondary schools affects quality

of teaching (Khan, 2004). A study conducted in USA revealed that most satisfied

teachers like to work in safe, supportive, and autonomous environment (National

Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1997). Job security is a prominent issue.

Employees with secure jobs revealed higher level of job satisfaction (Blanchflower &

Oswald, 1999; Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006). Especially females teacher prefer to work

under secure and safe environment (Aguilar & Vlosky, 2008). The reason behind

might be that in the past working conditions for women were very worse. School
 40

climate and involvement in curriculum reform improves teachers’ autonomous

development and decreases burnout. These factors positively influence teachers’ job

satisfaction and professional commitment (Jiang, 2005). In United States teachers are

less satisfied with remuneration and working conditions. Due to bad working

conditions, teachers are unable to prepare their lessons effectively (Liu & Ramsey, in

press). The autonomy of teacher, managerial support, and the involvement of teachers

in the governance of school have improved the morale and career commitment of

teachers (Ingersoll, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Weiss, 1999). A study

conducted by Zembylas & Papanastasiou (2006) in Cyprus revealed teachers’

satisfaction as students’ interaction, colleagues relationships, and contribution towards

society. They also identified dissatisfaction as impa ct of social problems on

performance, lack of interest, bad behavior, professional autonomy, teacher

evaluation, and promotion. Perie, Baker, and Whitener (1997) identified positive

relationship of workplace conditions on job satisfaction of teachers.

Personal Determinants of Job Satisfaction

Personal feelings and interests have significant impact of job satisfaction. While

studying, Worrel (2004) investigated the relationship of job satisfaction with

demographic variables (gender, age), intrinsic factors (responsibility, advancement,

and recognition), and extrinsic factors like (working conditions, supervision, and

salary).

Gender and Job Satisfaction

Gender has been the part and parcel of job satisfaction studies conducted over

the years. However their relationship is inconsistent. Some researches found female

employees and teachers express higher level of job satisfaction as compared to male

colleagues (Chaplain, 1995; Clark, 1997; Clecker & Loadman, 1999; Cox & Blake,
 41

1991; Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Lambert, et al., 2001; Ma &

MacMillan, 1999; Poppleton & Riseborough, 1991; Sousa-Poza & Sousa- Poza, 2003;

Tasnim, 2006; Watson, Hatton, Squires, & Soliman, 1991), some studies found males

are more satisfied due to better chances for employment and opportunities to

advancement (Al-Mashaan, 2003; Chiu 1998; Sousa-Poza & Sousa -Poza 2000;

Wingard & Patitu, 1993), while other researches found no considerable divergence

between the genders (Auster 2001; Iiacqua & Schumacher, 1995; Kim 2005;

Mortimer, Finch, & Maruyama, 1988; Thompson & McNamara, 1997). Some studies

suggested that men and women exhibit similar level of satisfaction (Clark, Oswald, &

Warr, 1996). Male teachers attach more importance to career than females hence they

are less satisfied (Kremer-Hayton & Goldstein, 1990). Female teachers teaching in

primary schools are more satisfied than middle school teachers in private institutions.

Women have lower expectations and easily satisfied at work (Witt & Nye, 1992).

They choose teaching due to sinuous schedule to save more time for their families

(Murnane, et al., 1991). In a study conducted by Oplatka & Mimon (2007) female

principals interpret job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in a quite different way.

Women in isolated workplaces reported higher level of job satisfaction because those

workplaces provide them job flexibility (Bender, Donohue, & Heywood, 2005). In

brief age and gender were the prominent predictors of burnout and job satisfaction

(Poulin & walter, 1993).

 42

Rural and Urban Work Site

Researches have shown higher level of job satisfaction among urban and

suburban teachers (Ruhl- Smith, 1991) when compared with rural settings (Arnold,

Seekins, & Nelson, 1997; Finley, 1991; Haughey & Murphy, 1984). The dominant

features for workers in urban areas are better opportunities, developed schools,

available transport, higher salaries, prestige, and superior opportunities for spousal

adjustment. In contrast, rural settings are mostly family-oriented, less crimes, free

recreation, and improved quality of life. The major drawbacks in rural setting are

professional seclusion and lack of professional growth. However, with the

advancement in modern technologies the concept of isolation has been relinquished to

a great extent (Worrell, 2004). Teachers of urban schools found more responsible and

sincere to their job and remain satisfied than the rural teachers due to infrastructure

(Tasnim, 2006). The research also revealed that rural teachers who get less salary are

relatively more satisfied than urban school teachers due to less competitive society

(Saeed, 1997).

The Role of Teacher

Teaching in today’s schools can be rewarding, but it can also fill with hassle,

annoyance, surplus, and petite time to manage oneself (White, 2000). The

effectiveness of teacher is a burning issue in modern educational reforms towards

improvement in schools. It is an acknowledged fact that teacher is the heart and soul

for school success (Cooper & Conley, 1991).

Teachers’ low job satisfaction is a world wide phenomenon (Crossman &

Harris, 2006). Due to various precincts the performance of teacher is restricted. The

confidence of teacher is affected by the poor quality of pre service training where
 43

they were lacked in subject matter proficiency. They have failed to restore their status

from the society and communities. They are a victim of low status job as compared to

other professions. Their status, especially for male teachers, has been suffered so

relentlessly that educated unwaged young opt for teaching only as a last resort and

quit the profession as early as possible (Khan, 2004). The principals of female and

male high schools are equally satisfied with their positions. More years of service

enhance their satisfaction towards the profession. They agreed that a great source of

satisfaction is their students (Eckman, 2004). T eachers perceive their profession a

sound for the feelings of personal development (Dinham & Scott, 1998).

The Role of Student

The major factor influencing teachers' satisfaction is the student (Lee &

Dedrick, 1991). Teachers being a professional, improve the performance of

classroom, develop students' discipline, and strengthen the needs of students (Blase,

1993). Personal satisfaction or recognition from others leads to greater job

satisfaction (Thompson, Thompson, & Orr, 2003). Most teachers feel it pleasure

while working with young learners (Shen, 1997). The teachers who choose teaching

for external incentives like status, salary, and benefits are very few (Dinham & Scot,

2000). Workload, pressure, and misbehavior of students are the main sources of stress

as reported by many teachers (Griffith, Steptoe, & Cropley, 1999; Travers & Cooper,

1996; Yoon, 2002).

The School Size and Environment

School size is positively associated with teacher satisfaction because in larger

schools the proportion of satisfied teachers tends be higher (Ingersoll, 2001; Lee &

Dedrick, 1991). Better schooling environment has optimistic impact on motivation of

 44

teachers. Studies conducted in United States revealed that the teachers of private

schools showed higher morale and job satisfaction levels as compared to public

school teachers (Alt & Peter, 2002; Henke, Chen, Geis, & Knepper, 2000; Perie,

Baker, & Whitener, 1997). Due to rapid enrollment of underprivileged students in

public schools the turnover of teachers was found to be high than private schools with

relatively prosperous students. The teachers are assigned extra workload while staff

shortage (Ingersoll, 2001). Poor working conditions make teachers ready to quit the

profession (Macdonald, 1999; Travers & Cooper, 1996; Tye & O’Brien, 2002). The

students as well as teachers both suffer extremely awful school atmosphere. The

youngsters are dispirited to education due to lack of sound security, housing facilities,

conveyance, and secluded rural areas (Khan, 2004). The environment has a

momentous impact on job satisfaction (Moriarty, Edmonds, Blatchford, & Martin

2001). The relevance behind is often justified as better environment leads to

productive workplace conditions by making workers happier (Newsham, et al. 2009).

Collaboration and communication between teachers and managers increased the level

of job satisfaction when solving problems mutually (Protheroe, Lewis, & Paik, 2002).

Erpelding (1999) and Hirase (2000) identified that students’ academic achievement is

positively linked to positive schooling climate.

Policy

Recruitment, postings, transfers, and promotions are key motivational factors.

Almost in all sectors, seniority is considered as sound base for promotion instead of

performance. The achievement of teachers is often ignored that disenchanted the

teachers in public schools towards effective teaching. The teachers perceived that

non-translucent appointments and transfers are key issues in job dissatisfaction. In

Pakistan primary school teachers are often ignored in career development programs
 45

(Khan, 2004). University employees were less satisfied with salaries, organizational

policy, and administration (Schroder, 2008).

Teacher Absenteeism

Teacher absenteeism is world wide phenomenon which indicates that they are

dissatisfied with their profession. Higher absenteeism (Spector, 1997; Wilson, DeJoy,

Vandenberg, Richardson, & McGrath, 2004) and turnover significantly correlated

with lower job satisfaction. Female teachers showed less absenteeism than males.

According to school heads, teachers’ absenteeism is a serious problem in public

schools than in private schools. It has negative effects on students’ academic

achievement especially among girls’ students being a quick responsive (King,

Orazem, & Paterno, 1999). It is an enviable outcome both for employees and

organizational viewpoint (Dow & Taylor, 1985), and turnover (Roper Starch

Worldwide, 2001; Tett & Meyer, 1993).

Job Satisfaction and Educational Level

Education has no significant affect on job satisfaction of employees (Iiacqua

& Schumacher, 1995; Lambert, et al., 2001; Ting, 1997). Recent studies have

revealed that educational level and job satisfaction are associated positively if the

qualifications and work of individuals coordinated exactly (Battu, Belfield, & Sloane,

1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Niehoff, 1995; Schroder, 2008). High

qualified workers prefer to perform those jobs that are consistent with their education

and become more satisfied (Bull, 2005). Pay satisfaction and academic performance

are interlinked (Currall, Towler, Judge, & Kohn, 2005). The workers with doctoral

degree exhibited higher satisfaction with their jobs (Blank, 1993; Brown, 2005).
 46

Job Satisfaction and Professional level

Profession is a primary source of need satisfaction. The psychological well-

being is promoted in satisfied workers and boost up their performance and functioning

while working in the organizations (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000;

Ryan, 1995). The most traumatic career in UK is teaching (Rose, 2000). As far as

gender is concerned, Khan (2004) found that academic qualification of teachers has

momentous brunt on the test performance of female students than boys both in urban

and rural setting. High qualified teachers depict higher level of satisfaction than low

qualified teachers that lead to renounce (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Schlechty &

Vance, 1983). This finding may be in part attributable to the fact that teachers with

better qualific ations perceive more alternative opportunities.

Two research paradigms develop the teachers’ professional status. They are

teacher education programs and incentives of teaching profession (Shen & Hsieh,

1999). The workers who enjoyed professional training opportunities were more

satisfied than those who did not (Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006). Nash (2000) identified

that most of the teachers were a victim of melancholy, fretfulness, and stress in

schools. A survey of job satisfaction by Gardner and Oswald (1999) indicated that

teachers were less satisfied than any other professional group. The number of vacant

teaching positions in UK has increased significantly during recent years (Evans, 1998)

because teachers intended to leave the profession (Personnel Today, 2003; Voluntary

Services Organization, 2000).

Rank and Job Satisfaction

Men and women at more senior levels in organizations reported higher job

satisfaction level with respect to managerial, clerical, and secretarial personnel

 47

(Burke, 1996). Prestige of occupation has positive relationship with job satisfaction

(Smith, 2007). There is a significant correlation between job satisfaction and rank.

The top jobs are facilitated with improved working conditions, promotion, salary,

management, sovereignty, and liability (Robie, Ryan, Schmieder, Parra, & Smith

1998). American principals were more satisfied with their colleagues, current job, and

liability and less satisfied with their promotion, salary, and fringe benefits (Graham &

Messner, 1998). Teachers of science subjects are comparatively less rewarded and

they prefer to join private sector where their skills are valued while in schools pay

based on domain of expertise is not differentiated (Murnane, et al., 1991). Hulpia &

Devos (2009) found that school heads were more satisfied with their jobs.

Age and Job Satisfaction

Age and job satisfaction have positive relationship with each other (Chambers,

1999; Cramer, 1993; Robbins, 2001; Schroder, 2008; Siu, Spector, Cooper, & Donald,

2001; Staw, 1995; Tolbert & Moen, 1998). Job satisfaction increases with age and

work experiences (Blood, Ridenour, Thomas, Qualls, & Hammer, 2002; Brown,

2005). Young teachers and workers quit the job easily than older ones because they

showed less satisfaction with their jobs (Begley & Czajka, 1993; Hodson, 1996;

Ingersoll, 2001; Murnane, 1987; Perie, et al., 1997; Spector, 1997). Due to

dissatisfaction new teachers leave the teaching profession within few years (Murnane,

et al., 1991). Older employees were found to be more comfortable and tolerant as they

have lowered expectations with their jobs (Spector, 1997). Literature revealed that

older employees were happier with their jobs, have lower turnover rates and miss

fewer working days (Kasl, 1997; Naceur & Fook, 2001). The level of satisfaction with

age is positively correlated, excluding the teachers of ages between 40 and 50. Many
 48

researchers reported that age and satisfaction have U-shaped relationship (Clark,

1996; Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006).

Job Satisfaction and Tenure

The span of time employees spent while working. Researches indicated that

employees with longer tenure showed greater satisfaction towards their work than

shorter tenure (Jinnett & Alexander, 1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Staw,

1995). According to Lambert, et a l. (2001) and Ma and MacMillan (1999) the

relationship between job satisfaction and tenure is opposite. This might be due to

inconsistent literature or speedy family requirements compared to low increase in salaries.

When the perceptions of individuals about work environment are not fulfilled they

become satisfied. It is more obvious in pre-service teachers who have optimistic

expectations during their training about school environment (Menon & Christou,

2002). Pre-service teachers perceive teaching as an easy job, which led to frustration

after entering into profession (Labaree, 2000). Brown (2005) investigated a positive

relationship between tenure and extrinsic job satisfaction.

Experience and Job Satisfaction

More experienced teachers express less satisfaction with teaching profession

than less experienced teachers (Sari, 2004). Professional development of teachers

enhanced job satisfaction. Experienced teachers showed greater satisfaction while

dealing with students than novice teachers. Teachers with greater experience have

higher level of job satisfaction and they are confident in dealing with parents and

students (Akhtar, 2000). Senior teachers enjoyed more facilities and resources on the

basis of their experiences. Years of teaching and job satisfaction have positive

relationship and newer teachers may retain due to this reason. The job satisfaction of
 49

teachers is related to their professional status means stayers, movers, and leavers.

Stayer teachers are happier with administration, interaction of students, and

professional growth as compared to leavers (Liu & Ramsey, in press).

Public versus Private Sector

Private education is financed by governing authorities or personal owners

while public education is run by government support (Stavrides, 2000). Many studies

have been conducted on private and public schools to explore the relationship

between academic achievement, effectiveness, equity, accountability, and level of

satisfaction (Bracey, 2002; Lockheed & Jimenez, 1996).

The comparison between both sectors has shown that private school teachers

were more satisfied with their teaching jobs than teachers in public schools (Alt &

Peter, 2002; Henke, et al., 2000; Perie, et al., 1997; Sonmezer & Eryaman 2008)).

One research indicated that teachers in public school were more satisfied than

teachers in private schools in terms of job security factors, public school teachers

showed higher level of job satisfaction than teachers in private institutions (Mehrotra,

2005).

Job Satisfaction in an International Context

Job satisfaction among Albanian teachers is significantly related to social

support and professional autonomy (kloap & Tarifa, 1994). Singapore teachers are

most satisfied with teaching job; the Americans and Pakistani teachers rank at second

and third to highest respectively; Japanese rank at the lowest; while Albanian,

German and the English are placed somewhere in the middle (Poppleton,1990).

Pakistan and Albanian teachers enjoy well with teaching as an occupation. The

German and Japanese teachers rank at the lowest (Saeed, 1997). Singapore teachers
 50

rank at the top in using teaching-learning process; the Americans, Germans, and

Pakistani are placed in the middle; while Albanians at the lowest. In Canada less than

40% teachers had enough material and equipment for their work (Stenlund, 1990). As

regards physical surroundings of the work, the English and Singapore schools rank at

the top; Pakistani along with Japanese and German schools are placed somewhere in

the middle ; while Americans and Albanians rank at the lowest. Collegial support is

the best in USA and lowest in Japan and Germany. Pakistani and Albanian teachers

are found to be more frequently involved in academic meetings with their colleagues.

Professional interaction among Canadian teachers was not sufficient (Ball &

Stenlund, 1990). The support from head teacher is highly encouraged in Albanian

schools; English, Singapore, and Pakistani schools are placed at second, third, and

fourth positions respectively; while Germans rank at the low est. In Pakistan teachers

get less support from the parents of the students. The situation was found

comparatively better in Albania and USA; other countries were found somewhere in

the middle. As regard with respect in the society, Albanian teachers are placed at high

esteem in the society; the English are placed at the lowest order. Job security,

monthly pay, and other allowances are found to be highest among German teachers.

Singapore and American teachers are next to the highest; Albanian and Pakistani

ranked at the lowest. Pakistani teachers get more than two times less parental support

than their colleagues from other countries. Job security, pay, and professional union

are more highly predictors of job satisfaction among German teachers in comparison

to other developed nations like Japan, USA, and UK (Lessmann & Gigerich, 1990).
 51

Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

When employees enter the workplace, they have an expectation and

perception of their supervisor. After some experience their perceptions contradict with

original expectation which led to job dissatisfaction (Elpers & Westhuis, 2008). While

studying job satisfaction in international context, Saeed (1997) investigated that

principal’s leadership style of principal, prestige of school, financial incentives,

working conditions, and parental support were the main sources of job satisfaction

which impacts students’ achievement. Zigarreli (1996) referred job satisfaction as a

statistically momentous analyst in effective schools. The job satisfaction of teachers

was influenced by the behavior of leaders (Bogler, 2001; Dinham & Scott, 2000;

Ostroff, 1992). Oshagbemi (2000) identified the sources of burnout and job

dissatisfaction as school culture, leadership, communication, associations with

community, reputation, and work pressure. Surveys of dissatisfied teachers found

administrative factors were related with job frustration. A study conducted by

Mehrotra (2005) found no significant difference between public and private school

principals’ leadership styles. Teachers in public schools are more satisfied than

private schools. Miller (2006) revealed that job satisfaction is extensively studied

attitudinal effect of participative leadership. Although, their results were inconsistent.

According to Yukl (2002) sometimes participative leadership resulted in higher

satisfaction and performance, and at other times it does not. When there is a hell of

difference between expected and perceived feelings dissatisfaction will occur. Elpers

& Westhuis (2008) found a noteworthy divergence between social workers’ expected

and perceived leadership, and the difference was associated with their jobs.

Employees are encouraged to employ supportive and directive leadership styles

(Ogbeide, Groves, & Cho, 2008). Participative management styles and decision-
 52

making increase the level of job satisfaction (Soonhee, 2002). The job satisfaction of

teachers has focused on the effects of exogenous variables like the leadership style of

principals, decision-making strategie s, and burnout (Kirby, Paradise, & King, 1992;

Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Silins, 1992).

 53

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

The study was designed to compare the impact of principals’ leadership styles

on the job satisfaction of public sector secondary school teachers in Punjab province.

The leadership styles of the head teachers of these institutions were also explored.

This chapter provides a detailed description and justification of the

methodology and procedure in the present investigation. The population of the study,

sampling procedure, final sample, hypotheses, variables of the study, instruments

used, their validation and pilot testing, procedure for collection of data, analysis

through statistical techniques, and permission to conduct the research are also taken

under black and white.

Population of the Study

The population of the study consisted of 5143 male and female public sector

secondary schools situated in all 36 districts in the province of the Punjab.

Sample of the Study

List of schools was taken from Directorate of Staff Development (DSD).

There are 36 districts in the province of the Punjab. They are further subdivided into

eight Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE). One district from each

Board was selected randomly. Due to gender and location of schools, they are

distributed in male, female, urban, and rural category. The principals of the schools

were requested to fill leadership styles measurement questionnaire and about four

secondary school teachers were requested to participate in the study and fill the job

satisfaction scale for teachers provided they have worked under the same principal for

at least one year. Eight of fifteen schools were selected using random sampling.
 54

Simple random sample was used in urban areas while in rural areas due to shortage of

teachers, census and convenient sampling was used. The detailed description of

schools in each district is given in the flow chart at next page.

 55

Figure 1. Public Sector Secondary Schools in Punjab 5143

Bahawalpur 30 Male Schools 15 Female Sch. 15

1511515

Chakwal 36 Male Schools 19 Female Sch. 17

D. G. Khan 28 Male Schools 17 Female Sch. 11

Faisalabad 37 Male Schools 21 Female Sch. 16

Gujranwala 50 Male Schools 34 Female Sch.

Lahore 60 Male Schools 31 Female Sch. 29

1511515

Sahiwal 36 Male Schools 25 Female Sch. 11

1511515

Sargodha 33 Male Schools 19 Female Sch. 14

Total 310 Male Sch. 181 Female Sch. 129

1511515
Figure 1 shows that 310 schools were selected by the researcher from 8 districts in the
province of the Punjab
 56

Hypotheses

Following null hypotheses were formulated to conduct the study:

Ho1 : There is no significant difference between Autocratic and democratic

leadership styles of principals.

Ho2 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female

principals working in rural areas.

Ho3 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female

principals working in urban areas.

Ho4 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male principals

working in urban and rural areas.

Ho5 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of female principals

working in urban and rural areas.

Ho6 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Ho7 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

Ho8 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Ho9 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Ho10 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.
 57

Ho11 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

Ho12 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

Ho13 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

Ho14 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

Ho15 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

Ho16 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Ho17 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Ho18 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

Ho19 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

 58

Ho20 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Ho21 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

Ho22 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

Ho23 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

Ho24 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

Ho25 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

Ho26 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

Ho27 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male a nd female

arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Ho28 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

 59

Ho29 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Ho30 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

male science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic

style of leadership.

Ho31 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

female science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic

style of leadership.

Ho32 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic

style of leadership.

Ho33 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

female science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic

style of leadership.

Ho34 : There is no significant difference of overall job satisfaction level on male and

female secondary school teachers.

Ho35 : There is no significant differenc e of age on overall job satisfaction level of

male and female teachers.

Ho36 : There is no significant difference of qualification on overall job satisfaction

level of male and female teachers.

Ho37 : There is no significant difference of experience on overa ll job satisfaction

level of male and female teachers.

Ho38 : There is no significant difference of workload on overall job satisfaction level

of male and female teachers.

 60

Ho39 : There is no significant difference of refresher courses on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

Ho40 : There is no significant difference of teachers’ strength on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

Ho41 : There is no significant difference of students’ enrollment on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

Ho42 : There is no significant difference of posting on overall job satisfaction level of

male and female teachers.

Ho43 : There is no significant difference of sources of income on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

Ho44 : There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on male and

female teachers.

Ho45 : There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and

rural teachers.

Ho46 : There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on science

and arts teachers.

Instruments of the Study

Data were collected with the help of two instruments: (i). Leadership Styles

Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ), and (ii). Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers

(JSST). The independent variable was principals’ leadership style and dependent

variable was teachers’ job satisfaction. Separate instruments for both of the variables

were used. As these instruments were already used for Ph. D research, permission to

use these instruments was taken. These instruments were pilot tested for this study to

check the reliability, validity and suitability. Leadership styles measurement

questionnaire was in Urdu which translated in English. The second instrument job
 61

satisfaction scale for teachers was in English. It was translated in Urdu. The

questionnaires were adapted using back-translation. There was high level of

consistency between the two translations and minor differences were corrected after

discussion and made possible appropriateness for cultural language system. It was

researcher’s perception that bilingual instruments may get better results from the

respondents due to relevancy.

Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ)

Leadership styles measurement questionnaire was developed by Iqbal in 2005.

It was adapted for this study. Out of 39 items, 38 items were taken for this study. This

instrument had two dimensions i.e. autocratic and democratic leadership styles. It was

designed to place each head of the institute in one of the two leadership styles. It is

attached at Appendix A. The items distribution of each style is given as under:

Table 3.1

Item Breakup of Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire (LSMQ)

S. no Leadership style Item numbers

1. Autocratic style 1,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,24,29,32,35,38

2. Democratic style 2,3,4,5,11,13,22,23,25,26,27,28,30,31,33,34,36,37

The table shows that autocratic leadership style has twenty items and

democratic leadership style has eighteen items

Pilot testing of Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire

The research instrument was administered to 40 head teachers which were not

included in the sample . Twenty heads belong to urban areas of which 10 were males

and 10 females, likewise 20 heads belonging to rural areas of which 10 were males
 62

and 10 females. The responses of the head teachers were tabulated and the factor

analysis was made. Internal consistency coefficient (using Cronbach Alpha) was

computed for reliability and its value was 0.658. This value was low for conducting a

research. After deleting the item numbers 3, 11, and 14 that have low correlation, the

value of Alpha was raised to 0.764. So they were rephrased and pilot tested again to

other 40 heads. After second factor analysis , the value of Alpha raised to 0.80 which

was good for conducting a research. As this instrument have two factors i.e. autocratic

and democratic leadership styles, the separate values of these were 0.647and 0.750

respectively.

Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers (JSST)

The second instrument (JSST) was developed by Mehrotra in 2005. It is a

Likert type close ended instrument. There were 60 items having 6 factors related to

job satisfaction. They were: pay 8 items, work 13 items, promotion 7 items, working

group 7 items, working conditions 14 items, and supervision 11 items. The item

breakup is given in table 2.

Table 3.2

Item Breakup of Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers (JSST)

S. No. Factors of the scale Item numbers

1. Pay 6,17,19,23,31,54,55,59
2. Work 1,3,5,13,15,18,20,22,24,25,27,28,30
3. Promotion 4,33,36,42,43,45,60
4. Work group (colleagues) 9,10,11,21,29,47,56
5. Working conditions 2,7,12,14,16,26,34,38,40,44,46,49,50,53
6. Supervision 8,32,35,37,39,41,48,51,52,57,58
 63

The table shows that six factors have sixty items. They are further subdivided

into pay 8 items; work 13 items; promotion 7 items; work group 7 items; working

conditions 14 items; and supervision 11 items.

Pilot Testing of Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers

The instrument was administered to 100 secondary school teachers other than

the sample for pilot testing. Fifty teachers were taken from urban areas of which 25

were males and 25 females and in the same ratio they were participated from rural

areas. The teachers were requested to tick the options with their best choice they

perceive. The responses from the respondents were tabulated and the factor analysis

was made. Internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) was computed for

reliability of the instrument and its value was 0.726. The items that have low

correlation were rephrased and pilot tested again on another sample of 100 teachers.

The overall value of Alpha was raised to 0.84 which was acceptable. This instrument

had six factors. The factor wise separate reliability was, pay .624, work .650,

promotion .732, work group .670, working conditions .615, and supervision .690.

Demographic Survey

Part of the instruments was a detailed demographic survey which included for

both teaching staff and principals. Sixteen items were included in the survey, such as

gender, age, qualification, exact headship experience, total academic meetings with

staff in a month, number of refresher courses attended, teaching experience, duration

in current school, students’ and teachers’ strength in the school, total periods taught in

a week, other sources of income with teaching salary, present posting at home or out

station, years of service with the current principal, location of school at rural or urban

areas, and category of te achers as SST science or arts. These items were prominent in

the literature as possible sources of mediated influence that could account for
 64

variations in leadership styles and teachers’ level of satisfaction. They present a sound

portrait for background of respondents.

Validity of the Instruments

The two instruments were pilot tested for their validity. These instruments

were validated independently by the experts in the field. The experts in the field of

test and measurement verified the face as well as content validity of instruments.

Reliability of the Instruments

As mentioned above, the reliability of Leadership Styles Measurement

Questionnaire was 0.80. The reliability of Job Satisfaction scale for Teachers was

0.84.

Data collection procedure

Data was collected personally and through trained assistants by survey

method. Printed instructions were provided to respondents to fill out the

questionnaires. The justification behind was that it reduces biased feed back to a great

extent. Completed questionnaires were collected by the researcher and the assistants

personally after one week of delivering the questionnaires. In this way the data were

collected efficiently and minimum chances for loosing the questionnaires. Out of 352,

310 principals returned the completed questionnaires. Three schools were deleted

from the analysis because the principals of those schools got equal scores on both of

the leadership styles. So the response rate was 88%.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by using SPSS version 15.0. Independent sample t-test

and one way ANOVA were applied to test the hypotheses. The individual response
 65

measures of leadership styles and job satisfaction level were aggregated. Means and

factor scores were calculated yielding both individual and group leve l data for

analysis.

Summary

This chapter has detailed the theoretical rationale and logic underpinning the

present investigation the researcher has made. The methodology employed in this study

was also discussed. Especially, population, sample selected, instruments applied,

methods of data collection, statistical methods used, and the null hypotheses

formulated all were discussed logically and in detail.

 66

CHAPTER 4

Data Analysis and Interpretation

This chapter deals with statistical analysis of data and interpretation of results.

Data were scrutinized by applying t-test, ANOVA, and computing percentages. Results

are presented in tables. In first part five null hypotheses about the leadership styles of

principals were tested by applying t-test. The second part deal with twenty eight null

hypotheses regarding the impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction were tested by

applying t-test. The third part treat ten null hypotheses concerning the demographic

variables on overall job satisfaction level were tested by applying t-test and ANOVA.

Finally, three null hypotheses about different dimensions of job satisfaction were tested

by applying t-test. The following table shows the type of data and number of null

hypotheses tested in each part.

Table 4.1

Summary and Type of Data and Method of Analysis

S. No Section(Part) Data type Hypotheses Methods of Analysis

I LSMQ Interval 1- 5 Percentage, t-test

II JSST Interval 6- 46 t-test, ANOVA

Part 1: Comparison of Leadership Styles of Male and Female Principals

The following table represents the percentage of principals of secondary

schools with autocratic and democratic leadership styles.

 67

Table 4.2

Percentage of Heads with Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles

Leadership style Number Percentage

Autocratic 54 17.6
Democratic 253 82.4

Total 307 100

The table reveals that out of 307, 17.6% of heads had autocratic leadership

style, while 82.4 heads had democratic leadership style.

Table 4.3

Percentage of Male and Female Principals Working in Urban Areas

Principals Number Percentage

Males 83 27
Females 71 23

Total 154 50

It is apparent that out of 154, 27% of male principals and 23% of female

principals were working in urban areas.

Table 4.4

Percentage of Male and Female Principals Working in Rural Areas

Principals Number Percentage

Males 98 32
Females 55 18

Total 153 50

The table revealed that out of 153, 32% of male principals while 18% of

female principals were working in rural areas.

 68

Ho1 : There is no significant difference between Autocratic and democratic

leadership styles of principals.

The following table compares the autocratic and democratic leadership styles

of principals.

Table 4.5

Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles of Principals

L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value

Total Autocratic 54 153.29 16.22

305 .958
leadership Democratic 253 151.64 10.20

Results indicate no significant difference between autocratic style (M=

153.29, SD= 16.22) and democratic style (M=151.64, SD=10.20), t (305) =.958. So,

the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between autocratic and

democratic leadership styles of principals” was accepted. It was inferred that

principals with autocratic and democratic leadership styles did not show significant

difference.

Ho2 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female

principals working in rural areas.

The following table com pares the leadership styles among male and female principals

working in rural areas.

 69

Table 4.6

Leadership Styles of Principals in Rural Areas

L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value

Total Rural Males 98 148.51 11.51

151 -3.225*
leadership Rural Females 55 154.56 10.42
*P< .05.

Table reveals a significant difference between rural male (M= 148.51, SD=

11.51) and rural female principals (M =154.56, SD=10.42), t (151) =-3.225. Hence, the

null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among leadership styles of

male and female principals working in rural areas” was rejected, which concluded that

there was a different leadership styles of male and female principals in rural areas.

Ho3 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male and female

principals working in urban areas.

The following table compares the leadership styles among male and female

principals working in urban areas.

Table 4.7

Male and Female Principals in Urban Areas

L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value

Total Urban Males 83 150.15 11.30

152 -3.717*
leadership Urban Females 71 156.71 10.44
*P< .05.

Table shows a significant difference between urban male (M= 150.15, SD=

11.30) and urban female principals (M=156.71, SD=10.44), t (152) =-3.717.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among

leadership styles of male and female principals working in urban areas” was rejected.
 70

It was revealed that male and female principals showed significant difference between

the leadership styles in urban areas.

Ho4 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of male principals

working in urban and rural areas.

The following table compares the leadership styles among male principals

working in urban and rural areas.

Table 4.8

Male Principals Working in Urban and Rural Areas

L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value

Total Urban Males 83 150.15 11.30

179 .966
leadership Rural Males 98 148.51 11.51

Results reflect no significant difference betwee n urban male (M= 150.15, SD=

11.30) and rural male principals (M=148.51, SD=11.51), t (179) =.966. Hence, the

null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among leadership styles of

male principals working in urban and rural areas” was accepte d. No significant

difference was found among urban and rural male principals.

Ho5 : There is no significant difference among leadership styles of female principals

working in urban and rural areas.

The following table compares the leadership styles among female principals

working in urban and rural areas.

 71

Table 4.9

Female Principals in Urban and Rural Areas

L. Style Principal type N Mean SD df t-value

Total Urban Females 71 156.71 10.44

124 1.149
leadership Rural Females 55 154.56 10.42

Results signify no significant difference between urban female (M= 156.71,

SD= 10.44) and rural female principals (M =154.56, SD=10.42), t (124) =1.149. Thus,

the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among leadership styles of

female principals working in urban and rural areas” was accepted, which revealed

that female principals utilized identical leadership styles in urban and rural areas.

Part II: Comparison of the Impact of Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles

on the Job Satisfaction of Teachers

Ho6 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.10

Urban and Rural Teachers Working under Democratic Style of Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban 423 213.96 20.24

902 .679
Rural 481 213.07 19.14

Results denote no significant difference between urban teachers (M = 213.96,

SD= 20.24) and rural teachers (M=213.07, SD=19.14), t (902) =.679. So, the null
 72

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and

rural secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was

accepted. It was summarized that urban and rural secondary school teachers did not

show significant difference between job satisfaction levels under democratic

leadership style.

Ho7 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

science teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.11

Urban and Rural Science Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Science 143 214.11 16.14

298 .752
Rural Science 157 212.61 18.22

The table illustrates no significant difference between urban science (M=

214.11, SD= 16.14) and rural science teachers (M=212.61, SD=18.22), t (298) =.752.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural science secondary school teachers working under

democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was obvious that urban and rural

science teachers had no significant difference between levels of job satisfaction under

democratic leadership style.

Ho8 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

 73

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.12

Urban and Rural Arts Teachers Working under Democratic Style

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Arts 280 213.88 22.07

602 .348
Rural Arts 324 213.29 19.60

Table suggests no significant difference between urban arts (M= 213.88, SD=

22.07) and rural arts teachers (M=213.29, SD=19.60), t (602) =.348. Thus, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and

rural arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership”

was accepted. It was apparent that urban and rural arts teachers had no significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

Ho9 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

male teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.13

Urban and Rural Male Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Males 226 208.95 20.28

549 -1.937*
Rural Males 325 212.16 18.25
*P< .05.
 74

Table confirms a significant difference between urban male (M= 208.95, SD=

20.28) and rural male teachers (M=212.16, SD=18.25), t (549) =-1.937. So, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and

rural male secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership”

was rejected. It was evident that urban and rural male secondary school teachers

showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under

democratic leadership style. Male teachers in rural schools were more satisfied having

higher mean value.

Ho10 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

female teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.14

Urban and Rural Female Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Females 197 219.71 18.66

351 2.249*
Rural Females 156 214.98 20.81
*P< .05.

The results demons trate a significant difference between urban female (M=

219.71, SD= 18.66) and rural female teachers (M=214.98, SD=20.81), t (351) =2.249.

Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural female secondary school teachers working under

democratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was resulted that urban and rural

female teachers showed significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction
 75

under democratic leadership style. Urban female teachers were more satisfied than

rural female teachers, having higher mean value.

Ho11 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares job satisfaction level among urban and rural

male science teachers working under democratic leadership.

Table 4.15

Urban and Rural Male Science Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Male Sc. 81 211. 40 17.71

198 -.558
Rural Male Sc. 119 212.84 17.88

Results explain no significant difference between urban male science (M=

211.40, SD= 17.71) and rural male science teachers (M =212.84, SD=17.88), t (198) =-

.558. Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural male science secondary school teachers working under

democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was illustrated that urban and rural

male science teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job

satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

Ho12 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

male arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

 76

Table 4.16

Urban and Rural Male Arts Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Male Arts 145 207.58 21.52

349 -1.949*
Rural Male Arts 206 211.77 18.50
*P< .05.

Table reflects a significant difference between urban male arts (M= 207.58,

SD= 21.52) and rural male arts teachers (M=211.77, SD=18.50), t (349) =-1.949.

Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural male arts secondary school teachers working under

democratic style of leadership” was rejected. It was proved that urban and rural male

arts teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction

under democratic leadership style. Rural areas’ teachers were more satisfied than

urban areas.

Ho13 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

female science teachers working under democratic leadership.

Table 4.17

Urban and Rural Female Science Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Female Sc. 62 217.66 13.16

98 1.758
Rural Female Sc. 38 211.92 19.48
 77

The table exposes no significant difference between urban female science (M=

217.66, SD= 13.16) and rural female science teachers (M=211.92, SD=19.48), t (98)

=1.758. So, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural female science secondary school teachers working

under democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was revealed that urban and

rural female science teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of

job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

Ho14 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

female arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.18

Urban and Rural Female Arts Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Urban Female Arts 135 220.65 26.67

251 1.780
Rural Female Arts 118 215.96 21.20

Results show no significant difference between urban female arts (M= 220.65,

SD= 26.67) and rural female arts teachers (M=215.96, SD=21.20), t (251) =1.780.

Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary school teachers working under

democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was found that urban and rural female

arts teachers showed no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction

under democratic leadership style.

 78

Ho15 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and

female science teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.19

Male and Female Science Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Male Science 200 212.26 17.78

298 -1.527
Female Science 100 215.48 16.01

Results find no significant difference between male science (M= 212.26, SD=

17.78) and female science teachers (M=215.48, SD=16.01), t (298) =-1.527. Hence,

the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of

male and female science secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership” was accepted. Results showed no significant difference among male and

female science teachers working under democratic leadership style.

Ho16 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and

female arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

 79

Table 4.20

Male and Female Arts Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Male Arts 351 210.04 19.88

602 -5.017*
Female Arts 253 218.47 21.01
*P< .05.

The table shows a significant difference between male arts (M= 210.04, SD=

19.88) and female arts teachers (M=218.47, SD=21.01), t (602) =-5.017. So, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and

female arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership”

was rejected. It was apparent that male and female arts teachers showed a significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

Female arts secondary school teachers were more satisfied than male arts teachers,

having higher mean value.

Ho17 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.21

Urban and Rural Teachers under Autocratic Style of Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban 110 213.53 21.69

188 -.400
Rural 80 214.71 17.37

Results reflect no significant difference between urban (M= 213.53, SD=

21.69) and rural teachers (M=214.71, SD=17.37), t (188) =-.400. Thus, the null
 80

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and

rural teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was

evident that urban and rural teachers did not show significant difference between the

levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

Ho18 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

science teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.22

Urban and Rural Science Teachers under Autocratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Science 38 209.02 29.46

63 -.807
Rural Science 27 213.96 13.97

Results express no significant difference between urban science (M = 209.02,

SD= 29.46) and rural science teachers (M=213.96, SD=13.97), t (63) =-.807. Hence,

the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of

urban and rural science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership” was accepted. Evident showed that urba n and rural science secondary

school teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction

under autocratic leadership style.

Ho19 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

 81

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.23

Urban and Rural Arts Teachers under Autocratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Arts 72 215.91 15.92

123 .263
Rural Arts 53 215.09 18.98

Results reveal no significant difference between urban arts (M= 215.91, SD=

15.92) and rural arts teachers (M=215.09, SD=18.98), t (123) =.263. Therefore, the

null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of

urban and rural arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership” was accepted. It was proved that urban and rural arts teachers had no

significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic

leadership style.

Ho20 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

male teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

 82

Table 4.24

Urban and Rural Male Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Males 59 210.61 16.86

99 -.398
Rural Males 42 211.95 16.45

Results illustrate no significant difference between urban male (M= 210.61,

SD= 16.86) and rural male teachers (M=211.95, SD=16.45), t (99) =-.398. So, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and

rural male secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership”

was accepted. It was found that urban and rural male teachers did not show significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

Ho21 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

female teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.25

Urban and Rural Female Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Females 51 216.92 25.96

87 -.171
Rural Females 38 217.76 18.06

Results demonstrate no significant difference between urban female (M=

216.92, SD= 25.96) and rural female teachers (M=217.76, SD=18.06), t (87) =-.171.

Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job
 83

satisfaction of urban and rural female secondary school teachers working under

autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was apparent that urban and rural

female teachers had no significant difference between the leve ls of job satisfaction

under autocratic leadership style.

Ho22 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

male science teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.26

Urban and Rural Male Science Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Male Sc. 28 210.50 16.97

42 -.547
Rural Male Sc. 16 213.12 11.77

The table shows no significant difference between urban male science (M=

210.50, SD= 16.97) and rural male science teachers (M =213.12, SD=11.77), t (42) =-

.547. Therefore, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural male science secondary school teachers working under

autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was obvious that urban and rural male

science teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job

satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

Ho23 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

male arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.
 84

The following ta ble compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

male arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.27

Urban and Rural Male Arts Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Male Arts 31 210.70 17.04

55 -.109
Rural Male Arts 26 211.23 18.95

Results find no significant difference between urban male arts (M= 210.70,

SD= 17.04) and rural male arts teachers (M=211.23, SD=18.95), t (55) =-.109. So, the

null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of

urban and rural male arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was

accepted. It was found that urban and rural male arts teachers had no significant

difference in their levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

Ho24 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

female science teachers working under autocratic leadership.

 85

Table 4.28

Urban and Rural Female Science Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Female Sc. 10 204.90 51.75

19 -.623
Rural Female Sc. 11 215.18 17.23

The table illustrates no significant difference between urban female science

(M= 204.90, SD= 51.75) and rural female science teachers (M=215.18, SD=17.23), t

(19) =-.623. Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no signif icant difference among

job satisfaction of urban and rural female science secondary school teachers working

under autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was revealed that urban and

rural female science teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job

satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

Ho25 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of urban and rural

female arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among urban and rural

female arts teachers working under autocratic leadership.

Table 4.29

Urban and Rural Female Arts Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Urban Female Arts 41 219.85 13.97

66 .263
Rural Female Arts 27 218.81 18.60

Results explain no significant difference between urban female arts (M=

219.85, SD= 13.97) and rural female arts teachers (M=218.81, SD=18.60), t (66)
 86

=.263. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job

satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary school teachers working under

autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was found that urban and rural female

arts teachers did not show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction.

Ho26 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and

female science teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.30

Male and Female Science Teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Males Science 44 211.45 15.19

63 .180
Females Science 21 210.28 37.17

Results signify no significant difference between male science (M= 211.45,

SD= 15.19) and female science teachers (M=210.28, SD=37.17), t (63) =.180. Hence,

the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of

male and female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership” was accepted. It was evident that male and female science teachers had no

significant difference between their job satisfaction levels.

Ho27 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and

female arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

 87

Table 4.31

Male and female arts teachers

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Males Arts 57 210.94 17.77

123 -2.823*
Females Arts 68 219.44 15.84
*P< .05.

Table reflects a significant difference between male arts (M= 210.94, SD=

17.77) and female arts teachers (M=219.44, SD=15.84), t (123) =-2.823. So, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and

female arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership”

was rejected. It was concluded that male and female arts teachers showed a significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

Female arts teachers were more satisfied than male arts teachers , having higher mean

value.

Ho28 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and

female teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

 88

Table 4.32

Male and Female Teachers under Democratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Males 551 210.84 19.16

902 -5.124*
Females 353 217.62 19.75
*P< .05.

Results express a significant difference between male (M= 210.84, SD= 19.16)

and female teachers (M=217.62, SD=19.75), t (902) =-5.124. Therefore, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and

female secondary school teachers working under democratic style of leadership” was

rejected. It was found that male and female teachers showed a significant difference

between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Female

teachers were more satisfied than male teachers, having higher mean value.

Ho29 : There is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and female

secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and

female teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.33

Male and Female Teachers under Autocratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Males 101 211.16 16.62

188 -2.127*
Females 89 217.28 22.81
*P< .05.

Table reflects a significant difference between male (M= 211.16, SD= 16.62)

and female teachers (M=217.28, SD=22.81), t (188) =-2.127. Hence, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference among job satisfaction of male and
 89

female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership” was

rejected. It was evident that male and female teachers showed a significant difference

between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style. Female

teachers showed higher satisfaction than males under autocratic style.

Ho30 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

male science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic

style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male science

and arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.34

Male Science and Arts Teachers under Democratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Males Science 200 212.26 17.78

549 1.307
Males Arts 351 210.04 19.88

Table shows no significant difference between male science (M= 212.26, SD=

17.78) and male arts teachers (M=210.04, SD=19.88), t (549) =1.307. So, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of job

satisfaction among male science and arts secondary school teachers working under

democratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was concluded that male science and

arts teacher s did not show significant difference between job satisfaction.

Ho31 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

female science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic

style of leadership.
 90

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among female science

and arts teachers working under democratic style of leadership.

Table 4.35

Female Science and Arts Teachers under Democratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Democratic Females Science 100 215.48 16.01

351 -1.283
Females Arts 253 218.47 21.01

Results illustrate no significant difference between female science (M=

215.48, SD= 16.01) and female arts teachers (M=218.47, SD=21.01), t (351) =-1.283.

Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of

job satisfaction among female science and arts teachers working under democratic

style of leadership” was accepted. It was manifested that female science and arts

teachers did not show their job satisfaction level significantly.

Ho32 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic

style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male science

and arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.36

Male Science and Arts Teachers under Autocratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Males Science 44 211.45 15.19

99 .151
Males Arts 57 210.94 17.77
 91

Table shows no significant difference between male science (M= 211.45, SD=

15.19) and male arts teachers (M=210.94, SD=17.77), t (99) =.151. So, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction

among male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic

style of leadership” was accepted. It was palpable that male science and arts teachers

had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic

leadership style.

Ho33 : There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among

female science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic

style of leadership.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among female science

and arts teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.

Table 4.37

Female Science and Arts Teachers under Autocratic Leadership

L. Style Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Autocratic Female Science 21 210.28 37.17

87 -1.622
Female Arts 68 219.44 15.84

Results reflect no significant difference between female science (M = 210.28,

SD= 37.17) and female arts teachers (M=219.44, SD=15.84), t (87) =-1.622. Hence,

the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference between the level of job

satisfaction among female science and arts secondary school teachers working under

autocratic style of leadership” was accepted. It was flagrant that female science and

arts teachers did not show any significant difference.

 92

Part III: Comparison of the Impact of Demographic Variables on Overall Job

Satisfaction of Teachers

Ho34 : There is no significant difference of overall job satisfaction level on male and

female secondary school teac hers.

The following table compares the job satisfaction level among male and

female teachers.

Table 4.38

Job Satisfaction Level among Male and Female Teachers

Job Satisfaction Teacher type N Mean SD df t-value

Jstotal Males 652 210.89 18.72

1092 -5.557*
Females 442 217.55 20.37
*P< .05.

Table reveals a significant difference between male (M = 210.89, SD= 18.72)

and female teachers (M=217.55, SD=20.37), t (1092) =-5.557. Thus, the null

hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of overall job satisfaction level on

male and female secondary school teachers” was rejected. It was conspicuous that

male and female teachers showed a significant difference between the levels of job

satisfaction. Female secondary school teachers were more satisf ied than male

secondary school teachers, having higher mean value.

Ho35 : There is no significant difference of age on overall job satisfaction level of

male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of age on job satisfaction level of

male and female teachers.

 93

Table 4.39a

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Age among Male Teachers

Males Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 868.166 3 289.389

Within Groups 228741.9 648 352.997 .820 .483

Total 229610.1 651

Results F (3, 289) = .820, P= .483 indicate that job satisfaction of male

teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. It was obvious that male

teachers’ overall job satisfaction remain the same with age span.

Table 4.39b

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Age among Female Teachers

Females Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 1322.622 3 440.87

Within Groups 181840.6 438 415.16 1.062 .365

Total 183163.2 441

Results F (3, 440) = 1.062, P= .365 reflect that job satisfaction for female

teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. In other words we can say

that job satisfaction among female teachers did not change through out the ir teaching

career.

Ho36 : There is no significant difference of qualification on overall job satisfaction

level of male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of qualification on job satisfaction

level of male and female teachers.

 94

Table 4.40a

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Qualification among Male Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 4512.216 7 644.60

Within Groups 225097.9 644 349.53 1.844 .076

Total 2296101.1 651

Results F (7, 644) = 1.844, P= .076 express that job satisfaction levels were

not significantly different with qualification among male teachers. It was apparent that

qualification levels did not change the level of job satisfaction among male teachers.

Table 4.40b

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Qualification among Female Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 3905.022 7 557.86

Within Groups 179258.2 434 413.03 1.351 .225

Total 183163.2 441

The table F (7, 557) = 1.351, P= .225 indicates that job satisfaction among

female teachers was not significantly different with qualification. It was evident that

female teachers did not show any significant difference with qualification.

Ho37 : There is no significant difference of experience on overall job satisfaction

level of male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of experience on job satisfaction

level of male and female teachers.

 95

Table 4.41a

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Experience among Male Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 42.806 2 21.40

Within Groups 229567.3 649 353.72 .061 .941

Total 229610.1 651

The table F (2, 21) = .061, P= .941 reflects that job satisfaction level was not

significant at .05 level. It was concluded that experience levels did not change the

level of job satisfaction among male teachers in secondary schools.

Table 4.41b

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Experience among Female Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 861.289 2 430.64

Within Groups 182301.9 439 415.26 1.037 .355

Total 183163.2 441

The table F (2, 430) = 1.037, P= .355 illustrates that job satisfaction level was

not significantly different with experience among female teachers. It was revealed that

experience levels did not show any significance with job satisfaction among female

teachers.

Ho38 : There is no significant difference of workload on overall job satisfaction level

of male and female teachers.

The following table compares the workload on overall job satisfactio n level of

teachers.
 96

Table 4.42

Job Satisfaction Level on Work Load of Secondary School Teachers

Work load Periods/week N Mean SD df t-value

Jstotal Up to 27 248 213.22 17.69

1092 -.324
Above 27 846 213.69 20.26

The results show no significa nt difference between work load up to 27 (M=

213.22, SD= 17.69) and above 27 (M=213.69, SD=20.26), t (1092) =-.324. Therefore,

the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of workload on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female te achers” was accepted. It was concluded that

academic work load of teachers did not show significant difference between the levels

of job satisfaction.

Ho39 : There is no significant difference of refresher courses on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of refresher courses on job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

Table 4.43a

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Refresher Courses among Male Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 766.514 2 383.25

Within Groups 228843.6 649 352.61 1.087 .338

Total 229610.1 651

 97

Results F (2, 383) = 1.087, P= .338 show that job satisfaction level was not

significant at .05 level. It was found that refresher courses had not apparent effect on

the level of job satisfaction among males.

Table 4.43b

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Refresher Courses in Female Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 372.358 2 186.17

Within Groups 182790.8 439 416.38 .447 .640

Total 183163.2 441

Results F (2, 186) = .447, P= .640 indicate that job satisfaction level was not

significant at .05 level. It was conspicuous that refresher courses did not show any

relevance with job satisfaction among female teachers in secondary schools.

Ho40 : There is no significant difference of teachers’ strength on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of teachers’ strength on job

satisfaction level of male and female te achers.

Table 4.44a

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Teachers’ Strength among Males

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 815.530 2 407.76

Within Groups 228794.6 649 352.53 1.157 .315

Total 229610.1 651

 98

Results F (2, 407) = 1.157, P= .315 reveal that job satisfaction level was not

significant at .05 level. It was evident that teachers’ strength did not show any

relationship with job satisfaction among male teachers in secondary schools.

Table 4.44b

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Teachers’ Strength among Females

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 27.269 2 13.63

Within Groups 183135.9 439 417.16 .033 .968

Total 183163.2 441

The table F (2, 13) = .033, P= .968 indicates that job satisfaction level was not

significant at .05 level. It was flagrant that teachers’ strength did not increase or

decrease the level of job satisfaction among female teachers.

Ho41 : There is no significant difference of students’ enrollment on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of students’ enrollment on job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

Table 4.45a

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Enrollment on Male Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 182.653 2 91.32

Within Groups 229427.5 649 353.50 .258 .772

Total 229610.1 651

The table F (2, 91) = .258, P= .772 reflects that job satisfaction was not

significant at 0.05 level. It was obvious that increased or decreased students’

 99

enrollment did not consider positive effect on the level of job satisfaction among male

teachers.

Table 4.45b

One way ANOVA on Job Satisfaction and Enrollment on Female Teachers

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Between Groups 1927.680 2 963.84

Within Groups 181235.5 439 412.83 2.335 .098

Total 183163.2 441

Results F (2, 963) = 2.335, P= .098 indicate that job satisfaction level was not

significant at .05 level. It was flagrant that enrollment of students did not affect job

satisfaction among female teachers.

Ho42 : There is no significant difference of posting on overall job satisfaction level of

male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of posting on job satisfaction level

of teachers.

Table 4.46

Job Satisfaction Level on Posting of Secondary School Teachers

Job satisfaction Posting N Mean SD df t-value

Jstotal Home station 824 213.92 19.93

1092 .998
Out station 270 212.54 18.99

Table illustrates no significant difference between home station (M= 213.92,

SD= 19.93) and out station posting (M=212.54, SD=18.99), t (1092) =.998. So the

null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of posting on overall job

 100

satisfaction level of male and female teachers” was accepted. It was prominent that

posting of teachers did not show significant difference on their job satisfaction levels.

Ho43 : There is no significant difference of sources of income on overall job

satisfaction level of male and female teachers.

The following table compares the impact of income sources on job

satisfaction level of teachers.

Table 4.47

Job Satisfaction Level with Other Sources of Income

Job satisfaction Other income N Mean SD df t-value

Jstotal Yes 218 210.09 18.56

1092 -2.937*
No 876 214.45 19.89
*P< .05.

The results reflect a significant difference between positive (M= 210.09, SD=

18.56) and negative responses of teachers (M=214.45, SD=19.89), t (1092) =-2.937.

Thus, the null hypothesis that, “there is no significant difference of sources of income

on overall job satis faction level of male and female teachers” was rejected. It was

apparent that sources of income of teachers had a significant difference on the levels

of job satisfaction. The teachers who had only teaching pay were more satisfied than

teachers who did part time jobs on the basis of mean value.

Part IV: Comparison of the Impact of Job Satisfaction Dimensions with respect to

Gender, School location, and Category of Teachers

Ho44 : There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on male and

female teachers.

The following table compares the job satisfaction dimensions on male and

female teachers.
 101

Table 4.48

J. S. Dimensions with Male and Female Teachers

J. S. Dimensions Teachers type N Mean SD df t-value

Pay Males 689 25.83 3.69

1156 -2.367*
Females 469 26.36 3.87

Work Males 683 49.44 5.25

1157 -4.716*
Females 476 50.91 5.12

Promotion Males 689 24.31 3.55

1159 -2.217*
Females 472 24.79 3.72

Work group Males 688 23.60 2.94

1162 -4.029*
Females 476 24.30 2.94

Work conditions Males 682 95.50 5.42

1144 -4.577*
Females 464 100.56 5.40

Supervision Males 676 40.47 7.14

1148 -5.266*
Females 474 42.68 6.85
*P< .05.

The results demonstrate a significant difference in job satisfaction dimensions

between male (M = 25.83, 49.44, 24.31, 23.60, 95.50, 40.47, SD= 3.69, 5.25, 3.55,

2.94, 5.42, 7.14) and female teachers (M=26.36, 50.91, 24.79, 24.30, 100.56, 42.68,

SD=3.87, 5.12, 3.72, 2.94, 5.40, 6.85), t (1156, 1157, 1159, 1162, 1144, 1148) =-

2.367, -4.716, -2.217, -4.029, -4.577, -5.266 respectively. So, the null hypothesis that,

“there is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on male and female

teachers” was rejected. It was overt that all these dimensions had significant

difference on the levels of job satisfaction among male and female teachers. Mean

values shows that female teachers were more satisfied with all these dimensions of

job satisfaction as compared with males.

 102

Ho45 : There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and

rural teachers.

The following table compares the job satisfaction dimensions on urban and

rural teachers.

Table 4.49

J. S. Dimensions with Urban and Rural Teachers

J. S. Dimensions Teachers type N Mean SD df t-value

Pay Urban 561 26.19 3.83

1156 1.274
Rural 597 25.90 3.72

Work Urban 564 49.98 5.78

1157 -.383
Rural 595 50.10 4.68

Promotion Urban 562 24.41 3.66

1159 -.826
Rural 599 24.59 3.59

Work group Urban 567 23.94 2.85

1162 .571
Rural 597 23.84 3.06

Work conditions Urban 558 48.15 5.74

1144 2.093*
Rural 588 47.47 5.16

Supervision Urban 560 41.24 7.50

1148 -.670
Rural 590 41.52 6.70
*P< .05.

The table reflects no significant difference in job satisfaction dimensions

between urban (M= 26.19, 49.98, 24.41, 23.94, 48.15, 41.24, SD= 3.83, 5.78, 3.66,

2.85, 5.74, 7.50) and rural teachers (M=25.90, 50.10, 24.59, 23.84, 47.47, 41.52,

SD=3.72, 4.68, 3.59, 3.06, 5.16, 6.70), t (1156, 1157, 1159, 1162, 1144, 1148) =

1.274, -.383, -.826, .571, 2.093, -.670 respectively. Therefore, the null hypothesis

that, “there is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and

 103

rural teachers” was accepted. It was concluded that pay, work, promotion, colleagues,

and supervision had no sig nificant difference on the levels of job satisfaction among

urban and rural teachers. On the other hand, working conditions with a t-value (2.093)

had a significant impact on the level of job satisfaction of secondary school teachers

working in urban and rural areas. The teachers who were working in urban areas had

greater satisfaction level with teaching than rural areas’ teachers on the basis of their

mean value.

Ho46 : There is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on science

and arts teachers.

The following table compares the job satisfaction dimensions on science and

arts teachers.
 104

Table 4.50

J. S. dimensions with Science and Arts Teachers

J. S. Dimensions Teachers type N Mean SD df t-value

Pay Science 384 25.96 3.68

1156 -.527
Arts 774 26.08 3.82

Work Science 382 49.84 4.83

1157 -.946
Arts 777 50.15 5.44

Promotion Science 383 24.49 3.52

1159 -.057
Arts 778 24.51 3.68

Work group Science 387 23.76 3.04

1162 -1.011
Arts 777 23.95 2.91

Work conditions Science 379 47.88 5.02

1144 .334
Arts 767 47.76 5.66

Supervision Science 383 41.20 7.01

1148 -.621
Arts 767 41.47 7.15

The table demonstrates no significant difference in job satisfaction dimensions

between science (M = 25.96, 49.84, 24.49, 23.76, 47.88, 41.20, SD= 3.68, 4.83, 3.52,

3.04, 5.02, 7.01) and arts teachers (M=26.08, 50.15, 24.51, 23.95, 47.76, 41.47,

SD=3.82, 5.44, 3.68, 2.91, 5.66, 7.15), t (1156, 1157, 1159, 1162, 1144, 1148) =-.527,

-.946, -.057, -1.011, .334, -.621 respectively. Hence, the null hypothesis that, “there is

no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions on science and arts teachers”

was accepted. It was apparent that pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working

conditions, and supervision had no significant difference on the levels of job

satisfaction among science and arts teachers.

 105

CHAPTER 5

Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussion, and

Recommendations
Summary
Democratic leadership style was dominant with 82% of heads. No significant

difference between autocratic and democratic leadership styles was found. Leadership

styles of male and female principals in rural and in urban areas differed significantly.

When male and female principals in urban and rural areas were compared, they show

the same leadership style. The same situation exists when female principals were

compared. Significant difference was found under democratic leadership style. Male

teachers in rural schools, especially arts teachers were more satisfied while working

under democratic leadership style in rural settings. When male and female arts

teachers were compared on both of the styles, they differed significantly, with female

teachers more satisfied. No significant difference of job satisfaction was found under

autocratic and democratic leadership styles when male and female teachers were

compared in science subjects. When female teachers of urban and rural areas in

science and arts subjects were compared under both of the styles, no significant

difference in job satisfaction was found. When male teachers of urban and rural areas

in science and arts subjects were compared under both of the styles, again no

significant difference in job satisfaction was found except rural areas’ teachers under

democratic leadership style who were more satisfied. Overall female teachers were

more satisfied with their pay, work, working conditions, colleagues, promotion,

teaching profession, and supervision than were males. Age, qualification, experience,

academic work, refresher courses, number of teachers and students in school, and

posting had no significant impact on job satisfaction levels of teachers.

 106

Findings

The key findings of the study are as under:

Part I: Findings related to comparison of leadership styles of school principals

In this part findings regarding the first five null hypotheses are described.

Independent sample t-test was applied. These findings are about the leadership styles

among male, female, male and female, urban, rural, and urban rural areas Principals.

1. Ho1 was about the difference between autocratic and democratic leadership

styles of principals. It was accepted as the t-value (.958) for total leadership

style was not significant at 0.05 level. It was inferred that principals with

autocratic and democratic leadership styles did not show any significant

difference between their leadership styles.

2. Ho2 regarding the difference about leadership styles of male and female

Principals working in rural areas was rejected because the t-value (-3.225) for

total leadership style was significant at 0.05 level. It was concluded that male

and female secondary school principals significantly showed a difference

between the leadership styles in rural areas.

3. Ho3 regarding the leadership styles of male and female principals working in

urban areas was rejected as t-value (-3.717) for total leadership style was

significant at 0.05 level. It was revealed that male and female principals

showed a significant difference between the leadership styles in urban areas.

4. Ho4 with t-value (.966) regarding the leadership styles of male principals

working in urban and rural areas was accepted. No significant difference was

found among urban and rural male principals.

 107

5. Ho5 regarding the leadership styles of female principals working in urban and

rural areas was also was accepted. It was obvious by t -value (1.149) that there

was no significant difference among urban and rural female principals.

Part II: Findings about the impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction of teachers

This part contains twenty eight null hypotheses. Independe nt sample t-test was

applied. The testing of null hypotheses revealed the following findings regarding the

overall job satisfaction among male, female, male and female, urban, rural, urban and

rural, science, arts, and science and arts teachers working under autocratic and

democratic leadership styles.

1. Ho6 with t-value (.679) and d f (902) regarding the urban and rural secondary

school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It

was depicted that urban and rural secondary school teachers did not show

significant difference between job satisfaction levels under democratic

leadership style.

2. Ho7 was about the comparison of urban and rural science secondary school

teachers working under democratic style of leadership. It was accepted being

not significant at .05 levels. It was found that urban and rural science

secondary school teachers had no significant difference between levels of job

satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

3. Ho8 was regarding the comparison of urban and ruralarts secondary school

teachers working under democratic style of leadership. It was accepted. The

results showed that urban and rural arts teachers had no significant difference

between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

4. Ho9 about the comparison of urban and rural male secondary school teachers

working under democratic style of leadership with t-value (-1.937) was

 108

rejected. It was evident that urban and rural male secondary school teachers

showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under

democratic leadership style. Male teachers were more satisfied in rural areas.

5. Ho10 regarding the urban and rural female secondary school teachers working

under democratic style of leadership was rejected at 0.05 level. It was revealed

that urban and rural female teachers showed significant difference between the

levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Urban female

teachers were more satisfied than rural female teachers, having higher mean

value.

6. Ho11 regarding the urban and rural male science secondary school teachers

working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It was illustrated

that urban and rural male science secondary school teachers had no significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership

style.

7. Ho12 regarding the comparison of urban and rural male arts secondary school

teachers working under democratic style of leadership with a t-value (-1.949)

and df (349) was rejected. It was proved that urban and rural male arts teachers

showed a significant difference between job satisfaction level under

democratic leadership style. Rural teachers were more satisfied than urban

teachers.

8. Ho13 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female science secondary

school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It

was conspicuous that urban and rural female science teachers did not show

significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic

leadership style.
 109

9. Ho14 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary

school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted. It

was found that urban and rural female arts teachers showed no significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership

style.

10. Ho15 regarding the job satisfaction of male and female science secondary

school teachers working under democratic style of leadership was accepted.

Results showed no significant difference among male and female science

teachers working under democratic leadership style.

11. Ho16 regarding the job satisfaction of male and female arts secondary school

teachers working under democratic style of leadership was rejected. It was

apparent that male and female arts teachers showed a significant difference

between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

Female arts secondary school teachers were more satisfied than male arts

teachers, having higher mean value.

12. Ho17 with a t-value (-.400) and df (188) regarding the job satisfaction of urban

and rural secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership was accepted. It was evident that urban and rural teachers did not

show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under

autocratic leadership style.

13. Ho18 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural science secondary school

teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. Evident

showed that urban and rural science secondary school teachers had no

significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic

leadership style.
 110

14. Ho19 with a t-value (.263) regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural arts

secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was

accepted. It was proved that urban and rural arts secondary school teachers

had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under

autocratic leadership style.

15. Ho20 regarding the job satisfaction of urba n and rural male secondary school

teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. It was

found that urban and rural male secondary school teachers did not show

significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic

leadership style.

16. Ho21 was about the job satisfaction of urban and rural female secondary school

teachers working under autocratic style of leadership. It was accepted with a t-

value (-.171). The results showed that urban and rural female secondary

school teachers did not show any significant difference between the levels of

job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

17. Ho22 with a t-value (-.547) and df (42) regarding the job satisfaction of urban

and rural male science secondary school teachers working under autocratic

style of leadership was accepted. It was obvious that urban and rural male

science secondary school teachers did not show significant difference between

the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

18. Ho23 was about the job satisfaction of urban and rural male arts secondary

school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. It

was found that urban and rural male arts secondary school teachers had no

significant difference in their levels of job satisfaction under autocratic

leadership style.
 111

19. Ho24 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female science

secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership was

accepted with a t-value (-.623) and df (19). It was revealed that urban and rural

female science secondary school teachers had no significant difference

between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

20. Ho25 regarding the job satisfaction of urban and rural female arts secondary

school te achers working under autocratic style of leadership was accepted. It

was found that urban and rural female arts secondary school teachers did not

show significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under

autocratic leadership style.

21. Ho26 w ith a t-value (.180) and d f (63) about the job satisfaction of male and

female science secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of

leadership was accepted. The results showed that male and female science

secondary school teachers had no significant difference between the levels of

job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

22. Ho27 regarding the job satisfaction of male and female arts secondary school

teachers working under autocratic style of was rejected. It was concluded that

male and female arts secondary school teachers showed a significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership

style. Female arts teachers were more satisfied than male arts teachers, having

higher mean value.

23. Ho28 regarding the job satisfaction level of male and female secondary school

teachers working under democratic style of leadership was rejected. It was

found that male and female secondary school teachers showed a significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership

 112

style. Female teachers were more satisfied than male teachers, having higher

mean value.

24. Ho29 with a (-2.127) and df (188) regarding the job satisfaction of male and

female secondary school teachers working under autocratic style of leadership

was rejected. It was evident that male and female secondary school teachers

showed a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under

autocratic leadership style. Female secondary school teachers showed higher

satisfaction than males under autocratic style.

25. Ho30 with a (1.307) and df (549) regarding the job satisfaction among male

science and arts secondary school teachers working under democratic style of

leadership was accepted. It was concluded that male science and arts

secondary school teachers did not show significant difference between the

levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

26. Ho31 with a t-value (-1.283) and df (351) regarding the job satisfaction among

female science and arts secondary sc hool teachers working under democratic

style of leadership was accepted. It was manifested that female science and

arts secondary school teachers did not show significant difference between the

levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style.

27. Ho32 with a t-value (-1.283) and df (351) about the job satisfaction among

male science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic

style of leadership was accepted. It was palpable that male science and arts

teachers had no significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction

under autocratic leadership style.

28. Ho33 with a t-value (-1.622) and df (87) about the job satisfaction among

female science and arts secondary school teachers working under autocratic
 113

style of leadership was accepted. It was flagrant that female science and arts

secondary school teachers did not show any significant difference between the

levels of job satisfaction while working under autocratic leadership style.

Part III: Findings related to job satisfaction of teachers with demographic variables

In this part the findings about 10 null hypotheses were stated. Independent

sample t-test and one way ANOVA were applied. These null hypotheses were about

the overall job satisfaction level with respect to demographic variables.

1. Ho34 with a t-value (-5.557) and df (1092) regarding the overall job satisfaction

of male and female secondary school teachers was rejected. It was

conspicuous that male and female secondary school teachers showed a

significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction. Female secondary

school teachers were more satisfied than male secondary school teachers,

having higher mean value.

2. Ho35 regarding the impact of age on overall job satisfaction level of male and

female secondary school teachers. F value (.820) reflects that job satisfaction

of male teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. It was

obvious that male teachers’ overall job satisfaction remain the same with age

span. On the other hand, F value (1.062) reflects that job satisfaction for

female teachers was not significantly different in their age levels. In other

words we can say that job satisfaction among female teachers did not change

through out their teaching career.

3. Ho36 was about the impact of qualification on overall job satisfaction level of

male and female secondary school teachers. F values (1.844, 1.351) reflect

that job satisfaction levels were not significantly different with qualification
 114

among male and female teachers respectively. It was apparent that

qualification levels did not change their level of job satisfaction.

4. Ho37 regarding the impact of experience on overall job satisfaction level of

male and female secondary school teachers. F values (.061, 1.844) reflect that

job satisfaction levels were not significant at .05 level. It was concluded that

experience levels did not change the level of job satisfaction among male and

female teachers in secondary schools respectively. They did not found

experience as significant variable related to their job satisfaction.

5. Ho38 with a t-value (-.324) regarding the impact of workload on overall job

satisfaction level of secondary school teachers was accepted. It was concluded

that academic work load of secondary school teachers did not show significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction.

6. Ho39 regarding the impact of refresher courses on overall job satisfaction level

of male and female secondary school teachers with F values (-.324, .447)

both for males and females respectively showed that it was not significant at

.05 level. It was found that number of refresher courses had not apparent effect

on the level of job satisfaction among male and female teachers.

7. Ho40 was about the impact of teachers’ strength on overall job satisfaction

le vel of teachers in secondary school teachers. F values (1.157, .033) reflect

that job satisfaction was not significant at .05 level both for male and female

teachers. It was evident that teachers’ strength did not increase or decrease the

job satisfaction among male and female teachers in secondary schools.

8. Ho41 concerning the impact of students’ enrollment on overall job satisfaction

level of male and female secondary school teachers. F values (.258, 2.335) for

overall job satisfaction were not significant at 0.05 levels both for males and
 115

females respectively. It was obvious that increased or decreased students’

enrollment did not have positive or negative effect on the level of job

satisfaction among male and female teachers.

9. Ho42 with a t-value (.998) and d f (1092) related to impact of posting on overall

job satisfaction level of secondary school teachers was not significant at 0.05

level. Hence, the null hypothesis was accepted. It was prominent that posting

did not considered significant predictor of job satisfaction.

10. Ho43 with a t-value (-2.937) and df (1092) regarding the impact of income

sources on overall job satisfaction level was rejected. It was apparent that

sources of income had a significant difference on the job satisfaction. The

teachers who had only teaching pay were more satisfied than teachers who did

part time jobs on the basis of mean value.

Part IV: Findings related to various dimensions job satisfaction of teachers

In this part, findings about 3 null hypotheses are explained. Independent

sample t-test was applied. The testing of null hypotheses revealed the following

findings regarding the dimensions (pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working

conditions, and supervision) of job satisfaction level with respect to gender, school

location, and teacher category.

1. Ho44 regarding the impact of job satisfaction dimensions on male and female

secondary school teachers. The t-values (-2.367, -4.716, -2.217, -4.029, -

4.577, -5.266) for pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and

supervision as dimensions of job satisfaction were all significant at 0.05 level.

So the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference of job satisfaction

dimensions among male and female secondary school teachers was rejected. It

was obvious that all dimensions had a significant difference on the levels of
 116

job satisfaction among male and female teachers. Mean values shows that

female teachers were more satisfied on all dimensions of job satisfaction as

compared with males.

2. Ho45 regarding the impact of job satisfaction dimensions on urban and rural

secondary school teachers. The t-values (1.274, -.383, -.826, .571, -.670) for

job satisfaction dimensions were not significant at 0.05 level. So the null

hypothesis that there is no significant difference of job satisfaction dimensions

on urban and rural secondary school teachers was accepted. It was concluded

that pay, work, promotion, colleagues, and supervision had no significant

difference on the levels of job satisfaction among urban and rural teachers. On

the other hand, working conditions with a t-value (2.093) had a significant

impact on the level of job satisfaction of secondary school teachers working in

urban and rural areas. The teachers who were working in urban areas had

greater satisfaction level with teaching than rural areas’ teachers on the basis

of their mean value.

3. Ho46 concerning impact of job satisfaction dimensions among science and arts

secondary school teachers. The t-values (-.527, -.946, -.057, -1.011, .334, -

.621) for job satisfaction dimensions were not significant at 0.05 level. So the

null hypothesis that there is no significant difference of job satisfaction

dimensions on science and arts secondary school teachers was accepted. It

was apparent that pay, work, promotion, colleagues , working conditions, and

supervision had no significant difference on the levels of job satisfaction

among science and arts teachers in secondary schools.

 117

Conclusions

Important conclusions emerge as a result of the quantitative analysis made in

the study. Conclusions were drawn on the basis of data analysis as mentioned in the

preceding section. These conclusions are also presented in four parts.

Part I: Conclusions about the leadership styles of school Principals

1. 18% of school Principals fall in autocra tic leadership style and 82% fall in

democratic leadership style. Basis on data collection, 50% principals were

working in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. 32% principals were males and

18% were females in rural areas. 27% principals were males and 23% were

females in urban areas.

2. Principals with autocratic and democratic leadership styles did not show any

significant difference between their leadership styles.

3. Male and female principals in urban areas and male and female principals in

rural areas significantly showed a difference between their leadership styles.

4. When compared male principals in urban and rural areas no significant

difference was found. The same situation emerges when female principals

were compared in these areas.

Part II: Conclusions drawn from the impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction of

secondary school teachers

Teachers who participated in the survey indicated their strong preference for

overall satisfaction with principals of democratic style. Following conclusions have

been drawn on the basis of data.

1. 83% secondary school teachers were working under democratic leadership

style principals and 17% teachers under autocratic leadership style holder

heads.
 118

2. Urban and rural secondary school teachers did not show noteworthy

divergence between job satisfaction levels under democratic leadership style.

3. Urban and rural science and arts secondary school teachers did not show

significant difference between levels of job satisfaction under democratic

leadership style.

4. Urban and rural male secondary school teachers showed a significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership

style. Rural teachers were more satisfied as compared to urban male teachers.

5. The results of urban and rural female teachers showed significant difference

between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership style. Urban

female teachers were more satisfied than rural female teachers, having higher

mean value.

6. The level of job satisfaction of urban and rural male scie nce teachers did not

show any significant difference under democratic leadership style.

7. On the other hand the level of job satisfaction of urban and rural male arts

teachers showed a significant difference under democratic leadership style.

Rural teachers were more satisfied than urban teachers.

8. The results of urban and rural female science and arts teachers found no

significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic

leadership style when they were analyzed separately.

9. Consistent results were depicted among male and female science teachers

working under democratic leadership style.

10. On the other hand, male and female arts teachers showed a significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under democratic leadership

 119

style. Female arts secondary school teachers were more satisfied than male

arts teachers, having higher mean value.

11. Under autocratic leadership style, urban and rural teachers exposed matching

view points about job satisfaction.

12. The science and arts teachers of urban and rural areas reflected equal levels of

job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

13. It was found that urban and rural male and female secondary school teachers

have equal level of job satisfaction when analyzed separately under autocratic

leadership style.

14. It was obvious that urban and rural male science as well as arts secondary

school teachers responded identical levels of job satisfaction under autocratic

leadership style when compared separately.

15. Urban and rural female science and arts secondary school teachers also viewed

the akin levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership style.

16. Male and female science secondary school teachers had no significant

difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic leadership

style.

17. It was concluded that male and female arts secondary school teachers showed

a significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction under autocratic

leadership style. Female arts teachers were more satisfied than male arts

teachers, ha ving higher mean value.

18. Under both leadership styles, male and female secondary school teachers

exposed a hell of difference in job satisfaction level. Female teachers lead the

way.
 120

19. Both male as well as female science and arts secondary school teachers were

consistent in their results about the levels of job satisfaction under democratic

leadership style on analyzing separately.

20. Under autocratic leadership style, it was palpable that male as well as female

science and arts teachers explored alike results towards the level of job

satisfaction when compared independently.

Part III: Conclusions related to job satisfaction of teachers with demographic

variables

In this part impact of overall job satisfaction level on demographic variables is

discussed on the ba sis of the results of the study. Following conclusions have been

drawn.

1. It was conspicuous that male and female secondary school teachers showed a

significant difference between the levels of job satisfaction. Female secondary

school teachers were more satisfied than male secondary school teachers,

having higher mean value.

2. Teachers’ overall job satisfaction remains the same with age span. In other

words we can say that job satisfaction among male and female teachers did not

change through out their teaching career.

3. It was evident that qualification did not prove a notable aspect on overall job

satisfaction level among male and female teachers.

4. It was concluded that experience levels did not affect the job satisfaction

among male and female teachers. They did not found experience as significant

variable related to their jobs.

5. Academic work load of secondary school teachers did not alter job satisfaction

level.
 121

6. It was found that number of refresher courses had not apparent effect on the

level of job satisfaction among male and female teachers.

7. Teachers’ strength and students’ enrollment in schools did not increase or

decrease the level of job satisfaction among male and female teachers in

public sector.

8. It was prominent that posting of teachers at home or out station did not play a

paramount role towards their job satisfaction levels.

9. Sources of income of secondary school teachers had a significant difference

on the levels of job satisfaction. The teachers who had only teaching pay were

more satisfied and contented than teachers who had other sources of income

on the basis of mean value .

Part IV: Conclusions related to job satisfaction of teachers with various dimensions

In this part findings about the impact of job satisfaction dimensions on gender,

school location, and category of teachers have been drawn on the basis of the results

of the study. Following conclusions have been drawn.

1. Pay, work, promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and supervision had a

significant difference on the levels of job satisfaction among male and female

teachers. Mean value showed that female teachers were more satisfied with

these dimensions as compared to males. They feel it pleasure while working

with colleagues, working conditions of teaching, and supervisory behavior of

heads.

2. Teachers working in urban and rural areas reflected that pay, work,

promotion, colleagues, and supervision did not increase or decrease the levels

of job satisfaction. On the other hand, working conditions had a lasting effect
 122

among urban and rural teachers. Urban school teachers were more satisfied

with working conditions than rural school teachers.

3. When science and arts teachers were analyzed with respect to pay, work,

promotion, colleagues, working conditions, and supervision. Their results

were more consistent.

Discussion

The study was aimed to provide broader results about the impact of leadership

styles on the job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Generalizations were

made on the basis of data. The following discussion of selected findings is based on

the personal judgment of the researcher.

1. Democratic leadership style prevails over autocratic style. 18% of school

Principals fall in autocratic leadership style and 82% fall in democratic

leadership style. These findings supported the previous research that revealed

21% heads fall in authoritative leadership style and 79% fall in democratic

leadership style (Iqbal, 2005). The two studies have a trivial difference.

2. A worthwhile contradiction was existed on comparing leadership styles of

male and female principals in rural areas. The same situation was seen in

urban areas. When male principals in urban and rural areas were compared, no

significant difference was revealed. The same results were drawn on female

principals.

3. Educational leaders in the past emphasized autocratic leadership (Owens,

2004). Now the situation has been changed. The results of present research

supported the findings of (Daft, 2005) that democratic leadership style is

popular style of employees in most organizations.

 123

4. Significant difference was found under democratic leadership style. These

findings supported the results that employees have greater job satisfaction

under democratic heads (Bass, 1990; Evans, 1998; Hackman & Johnson,

1996; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997; Smith 1998; Tasnim, 2006). Male rural

school teachers’ especially male arts teachers were more satisfied. They have

significant job satisfaction level in rural settings. This finding supports the

study of Saeed (1997). The logic behind might be due to less competitive

society, family oriented surroundings, and minimum crimes. Female teachers

in urban schools especially with working conditions were more satisfied than

rural teachers. These findings supported the results of (Hannum, 2003; Ruhl-

Smith, 1991; Tasnim, 2006) who found that urban schools have advantaged

over rural schools. It may be due to better spousal adjustment, incentives, and

gorgeous infrastructure.

5. Female teachers were more satisfied on both dimensions of leadership styles

when compared with male s.

6. The current study revealed that age and job satisfaction did not show any

significant difference. These findings contradicted many studies that claimed

the existence of positive relationship (Chambers, 1999; Cramer, 1993;

Robbins, 2001; Schroder, 2008; Siu, Spector, Cooper, & Donald, 2001; Staw,

1995; Tolbert & Moen, 1998). Qualification and job satisfaction did not found

momentous liaison. The most sound reason behind is that educational policies

do not hearten teachers monetarily to augment their qualifications. This

verdict supported many studies (Iiacqua & Schumacher, 1995; Lambert, et al.,

2001; Ting, 1997). It is contrary to prior researches that highly qualified

teachers quit their jobs easily due to better alternative opportunities (Darling-
 124

Hammond, 1984; Schlechty & Vance, 1983). It also gainsays many studies

that exposed positive relationship between educational level and job

satisfaction (Battu, Belfield, & Sloan, 1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000;

Niehoff, 1995; Schroder, 2008). Experience did not encourage teachers’ job

satisfaction. It is divergent to Akhtar (2000) who found positive relationship

between job satisfaction and experience. In this study academic work does not

push up teachers’ job satisfaction. It is due to the fact that teac hers ignored the

burden of work when they have entered the profession. These findings also

deny the result of (Moorhead & Griffen, 1992) who identified noteworthy

impact of work on job satisfaction. Refresher courses had no important impact

on job. This finding also contradicts the results of (Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006)

who investigated positive relationship between job training and job

satisfaction. The number of teachers and school size had no impact on job

satisfaction. Again these findings oppose the studies (Ingersoll, 2001; Lee &

Dedrick, 1991) who explored positive association between school size and job

satisfaction. Posting had no significant impact on job satisfaction levels of

teachers. It might be due to the fact that they have mentally prepared to work

any where once they have entered the profession. However, sources of income

had a significant impact on job satisfaction. Teachers who received only

teaching pay and had no other sources of income were more satisfied than

teachers who had extra jobs. It seems to be very astonishing especially in the

era of materialism but may be justified that they have exhausted too much

while teaching and remain content being relaxed.

7. Overall female teachers were more satisfied with pay, work, working

conditions, colleagues, promotion, teaching profession, and supervision than

 125

males. These results supported the findings of so many researches (Aguilar &

Vlosky, 2008; Chaplain, 1995; Clark, 1997; Clecker & Loadman, 1999; Cox

& Blake, 1991; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Lambert, et al., 2001; Ma &

MacMillan, 1999; Poppleton & Riseborough, 1991; Sousa-Poza & Sousa-

Poza, 2003; Tasnim, 2006; Watson, et al., 1991). On the other hand males are

less satisfied with their pay (Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006). Women have lower

expectations to their jobs and are easily satisfied. These findings supported the

study (Witt & Nye, 1992). The study also supported the findings that teaching

offers flexible schedule for women and they spare enough time to manage

their families (Murnane, et al., 1991). Also female dominated workplaces

provide them greater job flexibility and security (Bender, et al., 2005).

8. With respect to urban and rural settings, pay, work, promotion, colleagues,

and supervision had no effect on teachers’ job satisfaction. These result s may

be justified that duo to swift progress in modern technologies the world has

become a global village and the differences have been almost diminished.

Urban teachers were more satisfied with working conditions because of more

incentives and better inf rastructure.

9. Job satisfaction dimensions have no significant impact on science and arts

teachers.

10. The study also supported the findings of (Khan, 2004) that male teachers were

generally less satisfied and they become teachers only as a last resort. These

results may be warranted on the root that males have to fulfill dual

responsibility. They attach more importance to their career and have to prop

up their families as well as maintain status quo. Unfortunately, in the present

situation, where every one is trying to make its both ends meet, the teacher is
 126

especially a victim of such malicious circumstances. The study supported

many researches (Kremer-Hayton & Goldstein, 1990; Mehrotra, 2005).

Recommendations for further research

In Pakistani context, impact of leadership on job satisfaction bore fruitful results.

To broader the research results, worthwhile recommendations have been made.

Teachers in Punjab province are studied. This research should be conducted in

other provinces to get nationwide consistent results both in public sector as well as

private sector schools. There is a dire need to develop psychometrically sound

measurement instruments that measure theoretical as well as practical aspects of

leadership styles.

To give the top priority to education, this research seems timely to vitalize and

inform principals’ training and professional development for futuristic vision. It is the

need of the hour to train school principals to adapt most effective leadership style.

The research study may be strengthen by investigating the impact of principals’

leadership styles on students’ achievement. Also impact of teachers’ job satisfaction

level on students’ achievement under heads leadership styles should be studied in the

context of Pakistan so to enhance the productivity and effectiveness in public sector

education.

The impact of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction should be

compared in other sectors to improve employees’ performance. In this way we can get

sound basis and measure by exploring the significant differences in outputs between

education and business organizations.

This study identified males’ job satisfaction level under male heads and vice versa

separately. Further studies may be conducted where male leaders lead female

subordinates and female heads lead male subordinates to explore gender disparity.
 127

References

Aguilar, F. X., & Vlosky, R. P. (2008). Gender differences in determinants of job

satisfaction among cooperative extension workers in the United Applied

Economics Letters, 1- 5.States.

Akhtar, M. S. (2010). Job satisfaction and customer focus: A survey of elementary

school teachers. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co.

Ali, A. J., Azim, A. A., & Krishnan, K. S. (1995). Expatriates and host country

nationals: Managerial values and decision styles. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 16 (6), 27- 34.

Al-Lamki, S. (1999). Paradigm shift: A perspective on Omani women in management

in the Sultanate of Oman. Advancing Women in Leadership. Retrieved

December 5, 2009, from http//www.advancingwomen.com/awl/spring99/al-

lamki/allamk.html

Al-Mashaan, O. (2003). Associations among job satisfaction, pessimism and

psychosomatic symptoms of employees in the government sector.

Psychological Reports, 93, 17- 25.

Alt, M. N., & Peter, K. (2002). Private schools: A brief portrait. NCES 2002-013, US

Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

National Center for Education Statistics. Applied Psychology, 56(2), 95-105.

Andrew, J. D., Faubion, C. W., & Palmer, C. D. (2002). The relationship between

counselor satisfaction and extrinsic job factors in state rehabilitation agencies.

Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 223–233.

Arnold, N. L., Seekins, T., & Nelson, R. E. (1997). A comparison of vocational

rehabilitation counselors: Rural and urban differences. Rehabilitation

Counseling Bulletin, 41, 2-14.

 128

Auster, E. R. (2001) Professional women’s midcareer satisfaction: Towards an

explanatory framework. Sex Role, 44(11/12), 719–750.

Ball, C. J., & Stenlund, V. (1990). The centrality of work, working conditions, and

job satisfaction of teachers in Canada: An Ontario study. Comparative

Education, 26(2/3), 325-326.

Barker, B. (2001). Do Leaders matter? Educational Review , 53(1), 65–76.

Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is?

Human Relations, 50, 343-362.

Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1998). Management. USA: McGraw-Hill.

Bartol, K., Tein, M., Matthews, G., & Martin, D. (2003). Management. Australia:

McGraw-Hill.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research &

managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Personal selling and transactional/transformational leadership.

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17(3), 19–28.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Management: Competing in new era. New

York: McGraw- Hill.

Begley, T., & Czajka, J. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of

commitment on satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational

change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 552- 556.

Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school

head teachers and principals on student outcomes. London: University of

London Institute of Education.

 129

Bender, K. A., Donohue, S. M., & Heywood, J. S. (2005). Job satisfaction and gender

segregation. Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 479–496.

Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can’t lead? Training and Development Journal, 43,

35- 39.

Bishay, A. (1996). Teacher motivation and job satisfaction: A study employing the

experienc e sampling method. Journal of Undergraduate Sciences, 3, 147- 154.

Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1999). Well-being, insecurity and the decline

of American job satisfaction. Mimeo, Dartmouth College, USA and

University of Warwick, UK.

Blandford, S. (2000). Managing professional development in schools. London:

Routledge.

Blandford, S., & Grundy, W. (2000). Developing a culture for positive behavior

management. Emotional and Behavior Difficulties, 19(1), 21–32.

Blank, W. R. (1993). Factors associated w ith job satisfaction and dissatisfaction

among college student affairs professional staff (Doctoral dissertation,

Northern Colorado University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International,

54, 3273.

Blase, J. (1993). The micro politics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers'

perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 142- 163.

Blood, G., Ridenour, J., Thomas, E., Qualls, C., & Hammer, C. (2002). Predicting job

satisfaction among speech-language pathologists working in public schools.

Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 282- 290.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership styles on teacher job satisfaction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662 – 683.

 130

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K., & Weindling, D. (1993). Effective

management in schools: A report for the department for education via the

school management task force professional working party. London: HMSO.

Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In

M. H. Bond (Ed.). The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213- 266). Hong

Kong: Oxford University Press.

Bracey, G. (2002). The war against America’s public schools: Privatizing schools,

commercializing education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brkich, M., Jeffs, D., & Carless, S. A. (2002). A global self-report measure of person–

job fit. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 43–51.

Brown, D. (2005). Job satisfaction and its relationship to organizational and

religious commitment among workers at Northern Caribbean University.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

Bruce, W. M., & Blackburn, J. W. (1992). Balancing job satisfaction and

performance: A guide for human resource professionals. Westport, Conn.:

Quorum Books.

Bruno, L. F. C., & Lay, E. G. E. (in Press). Personal values and leadership

effectiveness. Journal of Business Research.

Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A

view from the elementary schools: The state of Chicago school reform.

Chicago: University of Chicago, Consortium for Chicago School Research.

Bull, I. H. F. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational

commitment amongst high school teachers in disadvantaged areas in the

Western Cape. Unpublished thesis of Magister Artium, University of the

Western Cape, Department of Industrial Psychology.

 131

Burke, R. (1996). Sources of job satisfaction among employed women of a

professional services firm. Psychological Reports, 78, 1231-1234.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Butler, B. B. (1990). Job satisfaction: Management’s continuing challenge. Social

Work , 35 (1), 112–117.

Caldwall, B. J. (1998). Strategic leadership, resource management and school reform.

Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 445- 461.

Casimir, G. (2001) . Combinative aspects of leadership style: The ordering and

temporal spacing of leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 245–

278.

Chambers, J. (1999). The job satisfaction of managerial and executive women:

Revisiting the assumptions. Journal of Education for Business, 75(2), 69–74.

Chaplain, R. P. (1995). Stress and job satisfaction: A study of English primary school

teachers. Educational Psychology, 15(4), 473- 489.

Cheng, Y. C. (2002). The changing context of school leadership: Implications for

paradigm shift. In K. Leithwood & P. Halinger (eds .). Second international

handbook of educational leadership and administration. USA: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Chieff o, A. M. (1991). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and organizational

commitment of community college leadership teams. Community College

Review, 19(2), 15- 25.

Chiu, C. (1998). Do professional women have lower job satisfaction than professional

men? Lawyers as a case study. Sex Roles, 38(7/8), 521–538.

Chung, T. P., Dolton, P., & Tremayne, A. (2004). The determinants of teachers

supply: Time series evidence for the UK, 1962 -2001. Retrieved September 20,
 132

2007, from http:// www.wasn.ac.UK/conomics/res2004/programme/papers

/Chung Dolton Tremayne.pdf

Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work?

Labour Economics, 4, 341–372.

Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U -shaped in age?

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57-81.

Conger, J. A. (1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. Academy of

Management Executive, 33, 17- 24.

Cooper, C. (1992). Management: Why women are leading the way. In M. Syrett & C.

Hogg (Eds.). Frontiers of leadership (p. 309). Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

Cooper, B. S., & Conley, S. C. (1991). From blame to empowerment: Critical issues

in the teacher work environment. In Conley, S. C. & Cooper, B. S. (Eds.). The

school as a work environment: Implications for reform. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

Cramer, D. (1993). Tenure, commitment, and satisfaction of college graduates in an

engineering firm. Journal of Social Psychology, 133 (6), 791- 797.

Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel

about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York, NY:

Lexington.

Crossman, A., & Harris, P. (2006). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers.

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34 (1), 29-46.

Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., Judge, T., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and

organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 613-640.

Daft, R. L. (2005). Management. Singapore: Thomson Asia.

 133

Danielson, C. P. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching .

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in

teaching. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Deji, O. F., & Makinde, O. T. (2006). Comparative study of the influence of

demographic and socio-economic characteristics of men and women leaders

on their leadership styles and patterns in the rural areas of Nigeria. Journal of

Comparative Social Welfare, 22 (1), 49-62.

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not

steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

De Nobile, J. J., & McCormick, J. (2005). Job satisfaction and occupational stress in

Catholic primary schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the

Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, November 27th –

December 1st.

Derlin, R., & Schneider, G. T. (1994). Understanding job satisfaction: Principals and

teachers, urban and suburban. Urban Education, 29(1), 63- 68.

Diaz-Serrano, L., & Cabral Vieira Jose, A. (2005). Low pay, higher pay, and job

satisfaction within the European Union: Empirical evidence from fourteen

countries. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1558, Bonn, Germany.

Dicksona, M. W., Hartog, D. N. D., & Mitchelsona, J. K. (2003). Research on

leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress and raising new

questions. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729- 768.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school

executive satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 362–378.

 134

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher

satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 379–396.

Dow, K. S., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings on the

relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-analysis.

Academy of Management Journal, 28, 599–612.

Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (1992). Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta_analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233- 256.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style

among school principals: A meta_analysis. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 28(1), 76- 102.

Eastman, N. (2006). Our institutions, our selves: Rethinking classroom performance

and signification. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,

28, 297–308.

Eckman, E. W. (2004). Does gender make a difference? Voices of male and female

high school principals. Planning and Changing, 35(3&4), 192- 208.

Elliott, C. (1992). Leadership and change in schools. Issues in Educational Research,

2, 45- 55.

Elpers, K., & Westhuis, D. J. (2008). Organizational leadership and its impact on

social workers' job satisfaction: A national study. Administration in Social

Work, 32 (3), 26- 43.

Erpelding, C. J. (1999). School vision, teacher autonomy, school climate, and student

achievement in elementary schools. Dissertation Abstract International, 60(5),

1405. (Publication Number AAT 9930316).

 135

Evans, L. (1997). Addressing problems of conceptualizations and construct validity in

researching teachers job satisfaction. Educational Research, 39(3), 319-331.

Evans, L. (1998). Teacher morale, job satisfaction, and motivation. London: Paul

Chapman.

Farber, B. A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fernandez, A. (2000). Leadership in an era of change. Breaking down the barriers of

the culture of teaching. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. E. Hauge & J. Moller

(Eds.). The life and work of teachers. International Perspectives in Changing

Times (pp. 239- 255). London: Falmer Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Fiedler, F. E. (1995). Cognitive resources and leadership performance. Applied

Psychology: An International Review , 44, 5-28.

Finley, W. H. (1991). High school principal job satisfactio n. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee.

Fleisch, B., & Christi, P. (2004). Structural change, leadership, and school

effectiveness/improvement: Perspectives from South Africa. Discourse:

studies in the cultural politics of education, 25(1), 95- 112.

Fondelier, S. (1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the

teacher follow up survey: 1994–1995 .Washington, DC: US Department of

Education.

Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic

leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration. Small Group

Research, 31, 676- 701.

 136

Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of

teacher burnout. The Journal of Educational Research, 86, 28–35.

Garcia -Bernal, J., Gargallo -Castel, A., Marzo-Navarro, M., & Rivera-Torres, P.

(2005). Job satisfaction: Empirical evidence of gender differences. Women in

Management Review, 20 (4), 279- 288. Retrieved, November 15, 2007, from

www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm.

Garrett, R. M. (1999). Teacher job satisfaction in developing countries. Educational

research supplemental series (G). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED 459150.

Gastil, J. (1994). A meta_analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of

democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25, 384-410.

Gazioglu, S., & Tansel, A. (2006). Job satisfaction in Britain: Individual and job

related factors. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163-1171.

Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2001). The composition of specialist schools in England:

Track record and future prospect. School Leadership & Management, 21(4),

365-381.

Graham, M. W., & Messner, P. E. (1998). Principals and job satisfaction.

International Journal of Educational Management, 12 (5), 196–202.

Green, J. (2000). Job satisfaction of community college chairpersons. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg,

VA.

Griffith, J., Steptoe, A., & Cropley, M. (1999). An investigation of coping strategies

associated with job stress in teachers. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 69, 517–531.

 137

Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconceptualization of the

superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 36, 117-142.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective

(2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling: A study of women managers in education.

London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school

effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980- 1995. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5- 44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school

effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.

Halpin, D. (2001). Hope utopianism and educational management. Cambridge

Journal of Education, 31(1), 103- 118.

Hannum, E. (2003). Poverty and basic education in rural China: Villages, households,

and girls and boys’ enrolment. Comparative Education Review, 47(2),

141- 159.

Hanslin, J. M. (2004). Essentials of sociology: A down -to -earth approach. Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Hanson, E. M. (1996). Educational administration and organ izational behavior.

Nedham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Restructuring: Post modernity and the prospects for

educational change. Journal of Education Policy, 9, 47- 65.

 138

Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement—leading or

misleading. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32 (1),

11- 22.

Hayers, N. (2000). Leadership: Foundation of psychology. New Jersey: Thomson

Press.

Hean, S., & Garrett, R. (2001). Sources of job satisfaction in science secondary

school teachers in Chile. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education,

31(3), 363- 379. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410984

Henke, R., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (2000). Progress through the teacher

pipeline: 1992– 93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school

teaching as of 1997. NCES 2000-152, US Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education

Statistics.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of

organizational behavior—leading human resources. Prentice Hall.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing

Company.

Hirase, S. K. (2000). School climate. Dissertation Abstract International, 61 (2), 439

(Publication Number AAT 9963110).

Hodgetts, R. M., & Luthans, F. (2003). International management. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Hodson, R. (1997). Group relations at work: Solidarity, conflict, and relations with

management. Work & Occupations, 24(4), 426- 452.

 139

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions, and organizations across nations. CA: Thousand Oaks, Sage

Publications.

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures

and implicit leadership theories across the globe. Journal of World Business,

37, 3-10.

House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on

organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. New

perspectives in International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 535-625.

Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job

satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education

Policy and Management, 28 (1), 17-30.

Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2009). Exploring the link between distributed leadership and

job satisfaction of school leaders. Educational Studies, 35(2), 153- 171.

Iiacqua, J. A., & Schumacher, P. (1995). Factors contributing to job satisfaction in

higher education. Education, 116, 51–62.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages. American

Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 499–534.

Iqbal, M. (2005). A comparative study of the organizational structure, leadership

style, and physical facilities of public and private secondary schools in

Punjab and their effects on school effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The

effective application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13,

212–226.
 140

Jennings, A. T. (2000). Hiring generation x. Journal of Accountancy, 189, 55–59.

Jiang, Y. (2005). The influencing and effective model of early childhood teachers’ job

satisfaction in China. US-China Education Review, 2(11), 65–74.

Jinnett, K., & Alexander, J. A. (1999). The influence of organizational context on

quitting intention. Research on Aging, 21 (2), 176–205.

Johnson, J. P., Livingston, M., Schwartz, R. A., & Slate, J. R. (2000). What makes a

good elementary school? A critical examination. Journal of Educational

Research, 93, 339–353.

Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a ‘‘sense of success’’: New teachers

explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40,

581–617.

Jones Johnson, G., & Johnson, W. R. (2000). Perceived over qualification and

dimensions of job satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Psychology,

34(5), 537–556.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job

satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative

review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376- 407.

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and

problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic

meeting system environment. Personal Psychology, 50(1), 121–146.

Kanungo, R. N. (1998, spring). Leadership in organizations: Looking ahead to the 21st

century. Canadian Psychology, 39, 71–82.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high

performance organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

 141

Kaur, R. (1993). Managerial style in the public sector. Indian journal of Industrial

Relations, 28(4), 363–369.

Keedy, J. L. (1993). Studying principal inner realities and their practice: Building

knowledge base. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Atlanta, GA.

Khanka, S. S. (2007). Organizational behavior: Text and cases. New Delhi: Chand

and company.

Kim, S. (2005). Gender difference in the job satisfaction of public employees: A study

of Seoul metropolitan government, Korea. Sex Roles, 52(9/10), 667–681.

Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & King, M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in

education: Understanding trans formational leadership. Journal of Educational

Research, 85(5), 303–311.

Klassen, R. M., & Anderson, C. J. K. (2009). How times change: Secondary teachers'

job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in 1962 and 2007. British Educational

Research Journal, 1–15.

Klecker, B. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1999). Male elementary school teacher’s ratings

of job satisfaction by years of teaching experience. Education, 119 (3), 504–

513.

Kloap, M., & Tarifa, F. (1994). Working conditions, work style, and job satisfaction

among Albanian teachers. International Review of Education, 40(2), 164–170.

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational

leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal

of Organizational Behavio r, 16(4), 319–333.

Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D.

Drenth, H. Thierry & C. J. de -Wolf (Eds.). Personnel psychology: Handbook

 142

of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 297–324). Hove, UK:

Psycholo gy Press.

Koustelios, A. D. (2001). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek

teachers. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(7), 354–

358.

Koustelios, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2004). Multivariate relationship and discriminant

validity between job satisfaction and burnout. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 19(7), 666–675.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw -

Hill.

Kremer-Hayton, L., & Goldstein, Z. (1990). The inner world of Israeli secondary

school teachers: Work centrality, job satisfaction, and stress. Comparative

Education, 20 (2/3), 285–298.

Kunwar, F. (2001). School leadership and school effectiveness: Reflections and

research in the context of Pakistan. Lahore: Nawa Publications.

Labare e, D. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: Difficult

practices that look easy. Journal of Teacher Education , 51, 228–308.

Lad, K. (2000). Two women high school principals: The influence of gender on entry

into education and their professional lives. Journal of School Leadership, 12,

663–689.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Barton, A., & Lubbock, S. M. (2001). The impact of

job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model

using a national sample of workers. Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233–251.

Lee, K. S., & Gao, T. (2005). Studying organizational commitment with the OCQ in

the Korean retail context: Its dimensionality and relationships with satisfaction
 143

and work outcomes. International Review of Retail, Distribution and

Consumer Research, 15, 375–399.

Lee, V. E., & Dedrick, R. F. (1991, July). The effect of social organization of schools

on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190–208.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A

replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451–479.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A

replication. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing

times. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from

http://www.cepa.gse.rutgers.edu/whatwe know.pdf

Lessmann, H. J., & Gigerich, R. (1990). A changed school and educational culture:

Job satisfaction and teacher satisfaction at Gesamtschulen in the state of

Hesse, West Germany-some international comparisons. Comparative

Education, 26(2/3), 227–281.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in

experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 270–

299.

Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of management. New York: McGraw -Hill.

Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (in press). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the teacher

follow up survey in the United States for 2000–2001. Teaching and Teacher

Education.
 144

Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1960). Leader behavior and member reactions in three

social climates. In I. D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.). Group dynamics. New

York: Harper & Row.

Lockheed, M., & Jimenez, E. (1996). Public and private schools overseas: Contrasts

in organization and effectiveness. In B. Fuller & R. Elmore (Eds.). Who

chooses? Who loses? (pp. 138–153). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lucas, G. H., Babakus, E., & Ingram, T. N. (1990). An empirical test of job

satisfaction turnover relationship: Assessing the role of job performance of

retail managers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, 199–208.

Lunenberg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2004). Educational administration: Concepts

and practices. USA: Thomson Learnin g.

Luo, M. (2004). Geographic disparities of Chinese school principals’ leadership

capacities: A perspective of teachers’ perceptions. International Studies in

Educational Administration, 32(3), 20–33.

Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luthar, H. K. (1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership

ability: Autocratic vs. democratic managers. Sex Roles, 35, 337–360.

Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers' job

satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 93 (1), 39–47.

Macdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of the literature. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 15, 839–848.

MacLean, R. (1992). Teacher's career and promotion patterns: A sociological

analysis. London: Flamer press.

 145

Mahmood, S. (1995). A study of leadership behavior and effectiveness of secondary

school heads in Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the

Punjab, Lahore.

Marks, S. (1994). Intimacy in the public realm: The ca se of co -workers. USA: Social

Forces Co.

Martinez-Ponz, M. (1990). Test of a three-factor model of teacher commitment. Paper

presented at the annual conference of the New England Educational Research

Organization, Maine. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000

019b/80/22/c5/24.pdf

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of

organizational commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

76, 607–618.

Maynard, M. (1986). Measuring work and support network satisfaction. Journal of

Employment Counseling, 23, 9–19.

McGregor, D. (1957). Human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-hill.

McKee, J. G. (1991). Leadership styles of community college presidents and faculty

job satisfaction. Community-Junior College, 15, 33–47.

Mcshane, S. L., & Glinow, M. A. V. (2004). Organizational behavior. New York:

McGraw- Hill.

Mehrotra, A. (2005). Leadership styles of principals: Authoritarian and task oriented.

New Delhi: Mittal Publishers.

Menon, M. E., & Christou. C. (2002). Perceptions of future and current teachers on

the organization of elementary schools: A dissonance approach to the

 146

investigation of job satisfaction. Educational Research, 44(1), 97–110.

Retrieved November 8, 2007, from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699076

Mercer, D. (1993). Job satisfaction and the head teacher: A nominal group approach.

School Organisation, 13(2), 153–164.

Merrill, R., & Pounder, D. (1999, November). Attraction and retention of high school

principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of

Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.

Miller, G. V. F., & Travers, C. J. (2005). Ethnicity and the experience of work: Job

stress and satisfaction of minority ethnic teachers in the UK. International

Review of Psychiatry, 17 (5), 317–327. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427280

Miller, K. (2006). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (4th

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Moorhead, G. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1995). Organizational behavior. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening

in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology,

90(3), 497–508.

Moriarty, V., Edmonds, S., Blatchford, P., & Martin, C. (2001). Teaching young

children: Perceived satis faction and stress. Educational Research, 43 (1), 33–

46.

Morris, A. (2000). Charismatic leadership and its after-effects in a Catholic school.

Educational Management & Administration, 28(4), 405–418.

 147

Mowday, R., & Sutton, R. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and

groups to organizational context. Annual Review of Psychology, 2, 195–229.

Mueller, C., Boyer, E., Price, J., & Iverson, R. (1994). Employee attachment and

noncoercive conditions of work: The case of dental hygienists. Work and

Occupations, 21, 179–212.

Mullins, L. (1999). Management and organizational behavior (6th ed.). London:

Pitman.

Murnane, R. J. (1987). Understanding teacher attrition. Harvard Educational Review,

57(2), 177–182.

Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., Willet, J. B., K emple, J. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1991). Who

will teach? Politics that matter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Murphy, S. E., & Fiedler, F. E. (1992). Cognitive resource theory and utilization of

the leader’s and group member’s technical competence. Leadership Quarterly,

3, 237–255.

Mwamwenda, T. S. (1995). Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in

Transkei. South African Journal of Education, 15 (2), 84–86.

Nash, P. (2000). Managing stress in schools. Teacher lin. First Report: London.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s

teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and

teacher compensation. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

National Union of Teachers. (2001). Who’s leaving? Teachers’ reasons for leaving

the profession. London: National Union of Teachers.

Newsham, G., Brand, J., Donnelly, C., Veitch, J., Aries, M., & Charles, K. (2009).

Linking indoor environment conditions to job satisfaction: A field study.

Building Research & Information, 37(2), 129–147.

 148

Ninomiya, A., & Okato, T. (1990). A critical analysis of job- satisfied teachers in

Japan. Comparative Education, 26(2/3), 249–257.

Ngidi, D. P., & Sibaya P. T. (2002). Black teachers’ personality dimensions and

work-related stress factors. South African Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 7–15.

Niehoff, R. L. (1995). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and individual

and organizational mission values congruence: Investigating the relationships

(Gonzaga University doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 56, 34–74.

Ogbeide, G. A., Groves, J. L., & Cho, S. (2008). Leadership styles of foodservice

managers' and subordinates' perceptions. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality

& Tourism, 9(4), 317–336.

Okpara, J. (1996). An examination of the relationship of motivation needs, cultural

factors, and job satisfaction among managers in selected business enterprises

in Nigeria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New

Yor k, NY.

Okpara, J. O. (2006). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness in pay,

promotion, and job satisfaction in a sub-saharan African economy. Women in

Management Review, 21 (3), 224–240.

Omolayo, B. (2007). Effect of leadership style on job-related tension and

psychological sense of community in work organizations: A case study of four

organizations in Lagos State, Nigeria. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology,

4(2), 1–8.

Omolayo, B. O. (2004). Influence of job variables on workers’ commitment and

satisfaction in four selected Nigerian manufacturing industries. Unpublished

thesis, University of Ado-Ekiti.

 149

Opeke, T. (2002, July). Women and work in Nigeria: Problems and prospects. Paper

presented at the World’s Women Congress, Department of Gender Studies and

Development, Makerere University, Uganda.

Oshagbemi, T. (1998). The impact of age on job satisfaction of university teachers.

Research in Education, 59 (1), 95– 108.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000). How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of

teaching research and administration and management? International Journal

of Sustainable Higher Education, 1(2), 124–136.

Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance:

An organizational level analysis. Journal of Ap plied Psychology, 77(6), 963–

974.

Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior. USA: Pearson Education.

Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (1998). What influences students to choose

the elementary education major: The case of Cyprus. Mediterranean Journal

of Educational Studies, 3(1), 35–45.

Papanastasiou, E. C., & Zembylas, M. (2005). Job satisfaction variance among public

and private kindergarten school teachers in Cyprus. International Journal of

Educational research, 43, 147–167.

Park, J. E., & Deitz, G. D. (2006). The effect of working relationship quality on

salesperson performance and job satisfaction: Adaptive selling behavior in

Korean automobile sales representatives. Journal of Business Research, 59,

204–213.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reforming the how’s and

why’s of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 150

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An

integrated approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perie, M., Baker, D., & Whitener, S. (1997). Job satisfaction among America's

teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and

teacher compensation . Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Personnel Today. (2003, January, 14). Teaching could face exodus by unhappy staff.

Personnel Today, p. 7.

Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be

both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1107–1121.

Phatak, A. V., Bhagat, R. S., & Kashlak, R. J. (2005). International management.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Philips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Poppleton, P., & Riseborough, G. (1991). A profession in transition: Educational

policy and secondary school teaching in England in the 1980s. Comparative

Education, 26 (2/3), 211–226.

Poulin, J., & Walter, C. (1993). Social workers’ burnout: A longitudinal study. Social

Work Research & Abstracts, 29 (4), 5–11.

Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. Bradford, UK: MCB

University Press.

Protheroe, N., Lewis, A., & Paik, S. (2003). Promoting teacher quality. Retrieved

December 03, 2009, from http://www.ers.org/spectrum/win02a.htm

 151

Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowski, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and

measuring a power interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 28, 307–332.

Redding, G., & Wong, Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational

behavior. In M. H. Bond (Ed.). The psychology of the Chinese people (pp.

267–295). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Regan, H. B., & Brooks, G. H. (1995). Out of women’s experience: Creating

relational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Reiner, M. D., & Zhao, J. (1999). The determinants of jobs satisfaction among United

States Air Force’s security police. Review of Public Personnel Administration,

19, 5–18.

Reis, H., Sheldon, K., Gable, S., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. (2000). Daily well-being: The

role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435.

Rettig, P. (2000). Leslie’s lament: How can I make teachers supervision meaningful?

Educational Horizons, 79(1), 33–37.

Riffat-un-Nisa, (2003). A study of relationship among leadership behavior of college

principals and their subordinates job satisfaction and acceptance of leader: A

path-goal approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the

Punjab, Lahore.

Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2003). Management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Robert, R. B., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid 111 . Houston: Gulf.
 152

Robie, C., Ryan, A. M., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L. F., & Smith, P. C. (1998). The

relation between job level and job satisfaction. Group & Organization

Management, 23 (4), 470–496.

Roper Starch Worldwide. (2001). What drives employee satisfaction. Community

Banker, 10, 42–43.

Rose, M. (2000). Future tense? Are growing occupations more stressed out and

depressive? University of Bath, ESRC Working Paper 3, Work Centrality and

Careers Project: Bath.

Rosener, J. B. (1990, January–February). Ways women lead. Harvard Business

Review , 119–125.

Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a

management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.

Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.

Saeed, M. (1997). Job satisfaction among Pakistani secondary and higher secondary

school teachers in comparison to other international countries. Bulletin of

Education and Research, 2, 37–58.

Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Te’eni, D., & Schwartz, D. G.

(2002). An empirical assessment of the loose-tight leadership model:

Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,

303–320.

Sahni, N. K. (2004). Management concepts and organizational behavior. New Delhi:

Kalyani Publishers.

Sari, H. (2004). An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction among Turkish special

school headteachers and teachers, and the factors effecting their burnout and
 153

job satisfaction. Educational Studies, 30(3), 291–306. Retrieved November 8,

2007, from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415834

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1997). Organizational behavior.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Schlechty, P., & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, selection, and retent ion: The shape

of the teaching force. The Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 468–487.

Schroder, R. (2008). Job satisfaction of employees at a Christian university. Journal

of Research on Christian Education, 17 (2), 225–246.

Schroffel, A. (1999). How does clinical supervision affect job satisfaction? The

Clinical Supervisor, 18(2), 91–105.

Schultz, H., Bagraim, J., Potgieter, T., Viedge, C., & Werner, A. (2003).

Organizational behavior: A contemporary South African perspective. Pretoria:

Van Schaik Publishers.

Schultz, I. L., & Teddlie, C. (1999). The relationship between teachers’ job

satisfaction and their perceptions of principal's use of power and school

effectiveness. Education, 19(4), 461–468.

Schwartz, D. J. (1987). The magic of getting what you want. NY: Rhema Publishing

House.

Scot, C., & Dinham, S. (2003). The development of scale to measure teacher and

school occupational satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration,

41(1), 74–86.

Scott, C., Cox, S., & Dinham, S. (1999). The occupational motivation, satisfaction

and health of English school teachers. Educational Psychology, 19(3), 287–

308.
 154

Shann, M. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban

middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 67–73.

Sharpe, R. (2000, November 20). As leaders, women rule. Business Week, 75–84.

Shelly, R. K., & Munroe, P. T. (1999, Spring). Do women engage in less task

behavior than men? Sociological Perspectives, 49–67.

Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools. The Journal of

Educational Research, 91, 81–88.

Shen, J., & Hsieh, C. (1999). Improving the professional status of teaching:

Perspectives of future teachers, current teachers, and education professors.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 315–323.

Silins, H. C. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. The Alberta Journal of

Educational Research, 38(4), 317–334.

Silins, H. C., & Murray-Harvey, R. (1999). What makes a good senior secondary

school? Journal of Educational Administration, 37, 329–344.

Sillitoe, W. (2003, October 31). The five-year hitch. Times Educational Supplement.

Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.tes.co.UK/your-

career/career-moves-dev-and-training.asp

Sim, W. K. (1990). Factors associated with job satisfaction and work centrality

among Singapore teachers. Comparative Education, 26(2/3), 259–275.

Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making

strategies and person– job fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 64(1), 198–221.

Siu, O., Spector, P., Cooper, C., & Donald, I. (2001). Age differences in coping and

locus of control: A study of managerial stress in Hong Kong. Psychology and

Aging, 16, 707–710.

 155

Smith, B. D. (1998). Leadership: Psychology, science and understanding. Ca:

Addison-Wesley.

Smith, S. C., & Piele, P. K. (2006). School leadership: Handbook for excellence in

student learning. CA: Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

Smith, P. J., & Cronje, G. J (1992). Management principles. A contemporary South

African edition. Kenwyn: Juta & ltd.

Smith, T. W. (2007). Job satisfaction in the United States. NORC/University of

Chicago.

Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary

approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Leadership

Quarterly, 39, 1–24.

Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive

leadership on teachers performance: The intervening effects of job structuring,

design domain, and leader-member exchange. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 42(5), 746–772. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from

http://www.eaq.sagepub. com/cgi/content/abstract/42/5.746.

Sonmezer, M. G., & Eryaman, M. Y. (2008). A comparative analysis of job

satisfaction levels of public and private school teachers. Journal of Theory and

Practice in Education, 4 (2), 189–212.

Soonhee, K. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for

management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.

Sousa, D. A. (2003). The leadership brain: How to lead today’s schools more

effectively. CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000). Taking another look at the gender/job-

satisfaction paradox. Kyklos, 53, 135–152.

 156

Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2003). Gender differences in job satisfac tion in

Great Britain, 1991–2000: Permanent or transitory? Applied Economics

Letters, 10, 691– 694.

Spear, M., Gould, K., & Lee, B. (2000). Who would be a teacher? A review of factors

motivating and demotivating prospective and practicing teachers. Slough:

NFER.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and

consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Starrett, R. J. (1993). Transforming life in schools: Conversations about leadership

and school renewal. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational

Administration.

Stavrides, M. (2000). Cyprus national report: Education for all 2000 assessment.

World Education Forum. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from

http://www2.unesco.org/wef/countryreports/Cyprus/rapport_1.html.

Staw, B. M. (1995). Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior. (2nd ed.).

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Stewart, G. L. (2000, August). Meta-analysis of work teams’ research published

between 1977 and 1998. Paper presented at the Academy of Management

Annual Meeting, Toronto.

Steyn, G. M., & Van Wyk, J. N. (1999). Job satisfaction: Perceptions of principals

and teachers in urban black schools in South Africa. South African Journal of

Education, 19 (1), 37–43.

Stinebrickner, T. R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics

of Educational Review, 17, 127–136.

 157

Sullivan, J. (1999). Leading values and casting shadows in church schools.

Unpublished paper, St. Mary’s University College, Twickenham.

Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (2002). Organizational behavior. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Tasnim , S. (2006). Job satisfaction among female teachers: A study on primary

schools in Bangladesh. Unpublished M. Phil. dissertation, University of

Bergen, Norway.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

turnover intension, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic

findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.

Thompson, D., & McNamara, J. (1997). Job satisfaction in educational organizations:

A synthesis of research findings. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(1),

1–31.

Thompson, D. P., McNamara, J. F., & Hoyle, J. R. (1997). Job satisfaction in

educational organizations: A synthesis of research findings. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 33, 7–37.

Thompson, C., Thompson. D. E., & Orr, B. (2003, Fall/Winter). A factor analysis of

variables affecting CTSO advisors’ satisfaction. Journal of Family and

Consumer Sciences Education, 21 (2), 1–9.

Tolbert, P. S., & Moen, P. (1998). Men’s and women’s definitions of good jobs. Work

& Occupations, 25 (2), 168–195.

Travers, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the

teaching profession. London: Routledge.

 158

Tsourvakas, G., Zotos, Y., & Dekoulou, P. (2007). Leadership styles in the top Greek

media companies: Leading people with a mixed style. International Journal

on Media Management, 9(2), 77–86.

Tye, B. B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the

profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1), 124–132.

U.S. Army Handbook (1973). M i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h i p . Retrieved September 20,

2007, from http://www.nwlink.com/donclark/leader/leadstl.html

Ubom, I. U., & Joshua, M. T. (2004). Needs satisfaction variables as predictors of job

satisfaction of employees: Implication for guidance and counseling. An On-

line Educational Research Journal, (4)3, 53–59.

Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Preferences for idealized styles of supervision. The Leadership

Quarterly, 13(6), 643–671.

Watson, A., Hatton, N., Squires, D., & Soliman, I. (1991). School staffing and the

quality of education: Teacher adjustment and satisfaction. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 7, 63–77.

Weiss, E. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale,

career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 861–879.

White, A. T. (2000). My morale has fallen, and it can’t get up. The Education Digest,

65(7), 61-63.

White, R. K., & Lippit, R. (1960). Autocracy democracy: An experimental inquiry.

New York: Harper.

Whitener, S. D., Gruber, K. J., Lynch, H., Tingos, K., Perona, M., & Fondelier, S.

(1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the

 159

teacher follow up survey: 1994–1995 . Washington, DC: US Department of

Education.

Wiley, S. D. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership

and professional community. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 1–33.

Wingard, M., & Patitu, C. L. (1993). Educational Administration Abstracts, 28(4),

445.

Witt, L. A., & Nye, L. G. (1992). Gender and relationship between perceived fairness

of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

77(6), 910–917.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and

student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398–425.

Whaley, K. W. (1994). Leadership and teachers job satisfaction. NASSP Bulletin, 78,

46–50.

Wharton, A., & Baron, J. (1991). Satisfaction? The psychological impact of sex

segregation on women at work. Th e Sociological Quarterly, 12, 365–388.

Wilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & McGrath, A.

L. (2004). Workstation characteristics and employee health and well-being:

test of a model of healthy work organization. Journal of Occu pational and

Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 565–588.

Witt, L. A., & Nye, L. G. (1992). Gender and relationship between perceived fairness

of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

77(6), 910–917.

Women in Business. (1997). Has management gone soft? Yes – and it works. Women

in Business, 49(1), 32–38.

 160

Worrell, T. G. (2004). School psychologists’ job satisfaction: Ten years later.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Wu, M. Y. (2006). Compare participative leadership theories in three cultures. China

Media Research, 2(3), 19–30.

Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher -student

relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and

Personality, 30, 485–494.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2002). The interface of leadership and team processes.

Group and Organization Management, 27, 4–13.

Zaccaro, S. J., Ardison, S. D., & Orvis, K. L. (2004). Leadership in virtual teams. In

D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro & S. M. Halpin (Eds.). Leader development for

transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 267–292).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business

Review, 126–135.

Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in

Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 357–374.

Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Sources of teacher job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction in Cyprus. Compare, 36 (2), 229–247.

Zigarreli, M. A. (1996). An empirical test of conclusions from effective schools

research. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(2), 103–109.

 Appendix E

Leadership Styles Measurement Questionnaire

Most Respected Sir / Madam,
Assalam-o-Alaikum

I am PhD scholar at I. E. R. University of the Punja b. Following information are required with humble
request to trace out the leadership styles of secondary school heads. Permission is granted from DPI (SE)
Punjab vide order No. 2943/Admn. 1(4), Dated 10-04-2008.

Male ? female ? Age? ? years

Your name
Qualification BA ? , B Sc ? , B Ed ? , M A? M Sc ? , M Ed ? , M Phil? , Ph D?

Exact headship experience ? ? Y Monthly meetings with staff ??

Number of refresher courses attended ?? Total period spent in this school ? ? Y

Total students in your school ???? Total teachers in your school ? ? ?

Present posting in your own town, city or village Other sources of income with salary
Yes ? , No? Yes ? , No?
Location of the school. Tick only one option

? Rural area (school located out side the Teh. & district Headquarter)
? Urban area (only the school located at Teh. & district Headquarter)

Name of school-------------------------------------------------------Signature with office stamp

Keeping research confidential is a top priority of the researcher. Please respond to each item without
any hesitation, reservation and consultation. Keep in mind that your responses will be kept strictly
confidential and will be used only for research purpose.

Please read each statement carefully and give your option in the spaces given against each statement.
Tick ‘Never’ if you do not perform the action. ‘Rarely’ if you do it a very few. ‘Off & On’ if you perform
the task seldom. Similarly tick ‘Often’ if you mostly perform the task and ‘Always’ if you perform it at all
times.

Thank you for your kind cooperation.

Yours Truly,

Asif Iqbal

Asifphd@hotmail.com
 Appendix F

Job Satisfaction Scale for Teachers

Most Respected Sir / Madam,
Assalam-o-Alaikum

I am PhD scholar in I. E. R. University of the Punjab. Following information are required with humble
request to trace out the le vel of job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Permission is granted from
DPI (SE) Punjab vide order No. 2943/Admn. 1(4), Dated 10-04-2008.

Male ? female ? Age? ? years

Your name
Qualification BA ? , B Sc ? , B Ed ? , M A? M Sc ? , M Ed ? , M Phil? , Ph D?

Exact teaching experience ? ? Y Total periods taught in a week ??

Number of refresher courses attended ?? Total period spent in this school ? ? Y

Total students in your school ???? Total teachers in your school ? ? ?

Present posting in your own town, city or village Other sources of income with salary
Yes ? , No? Yes ? , No?
Location of the school. Tick only one option

? Rural area (school located out side the Teh. & district Headquarter)
? Urban area (only the school located at Teh. & district Headquarter)

Name of school------------------------------------------------------Signature with office stamp

Keeping research confidential is a top priority of the researcher. Please respond to each item without any
hesitation, reservation and consultation. Keep in mind that your responses will be kept strictly
confidential and will be used only for research purpose.

Here are the statements regarding the teaching profession. Please read each statement carefully and give
your option in the spaces against each statement. Tick ‘SD’ if you strongly disagree to the statement. ‘D’
if you simply disagree. ‘U’ if you remain undecided. Similarly, tick ‘A’ if you agree and ‘SA’ if you
strongly agree to the statement.

Thank you for your kind cooperation.

Yours Truly,

Asif Iqbal Asifphd@hotmail.com

SD, strongly disagree D, disagree U, undecided A, agree SA, strongly agree

 Appendix G

List of Schools (Distt Lahore)

S. No. Name of School
1 Govt. Comp. GHS Wahdat Road Lahore
2 Govt. Kinared GHS Empress Road Lahore
3 Govt. Madrisa -tul-Binnat HS Kashoopura Lahore
4 Govt. GHS Shad Bagh Lahore
5 Govt. Pak Standard GHS Shad Bagh Lahore
6 Govt. GHS Faiz Bagh Chamra Mondy Lahore
7 Govt. Model GHS Gulshan-e-Ravi Lahore
8 Govt. GHS Gulshan-e-Ravi Lahore
9 Govt. Islamia GHS Lahore Cantt.
10 Govt. GHS PAF Base Lahore
11 Govt. GHS Ranger’s Colony Lahore
12 Govt. Islamia GHS Mustafa Abad Lahore
13 Govt. GHS Ghazi Abad Lahore
14 Govt. Yasmin Islamia GHS Mughal Pura Lahore
15 Govt. Millat GHS Mughal Pura Lahore
16 Govt. Muslim GHS Dry Port Mughal Pura Lahore
17 Govt. Madrasa-tul-Binat GHS Lake Road Choburgi Lahore
18 Govt. GHS Sultan Ahmad Road Ichrra Lahore
19 Govt. Fatima GHS Mozang Lahore
20 Govt. GHSS Singh Pura Lahore
21 Govt. GHHS Barki Lahore
22 Govt. Sh. Sardar GHHS Garhi Shahu Lahore
23 Govt. GHHS Ravi Road Lahore
24 Govt. GHHS Dev Samaj Road Lahore
25 Govt. Formen GHS Shah Alam Market Lahore
26 Govt. Islamia GHS Brandreth Road Lahore
27 Govt. GHS Chuna Mondi Lahore
28 Govt. GHS Napier Road Lahore
29 Govt. Madrasa-tul-Binat GHS Misri Shah Lahore
30 Govt. Muslim HS Lahore Cantt.
31 Govt. Islamia HS Lahore Cantt.
32 Govt. Tariq HS Lahore Cantt.
33 Govt. HS Shad Bagh Lahore
34 Govt. Islah-e-Moashra HS Shad Bagh Lahore
35 Govt. Islamia HS Chah Meeran Lahore
36 Govt. Islamia HS Misri Shah Lahore
37 Govt. HS Chamra Mondi Lahore
38 Govt. Islamia HS Sheranwala Gate Lahore
39 Govt. Islamia HS Mohni Road Lahore
40 Govt. Central Model HS Retigan Road Lahore
41 Govt. Muslim HS Civil Lines Lahore
42 Govt. Muslim Model HS Urdu Bazar Lahore
43 Govt. Saint Francis HS Anar Kali Bazar Lahore
44 Govt. Muslim HS Rehman Gali Brandreth Road Lahore
45 Govt. Watan Islamia HS Brandreth Road Lahore
46 Govt. HS Mozang Lahore
47 Govt. Community HS Mozang Lahore
48 Govt. Islamia HS Khazana Gate Lahore
49 Govt. Comp. HSS Ghorey Shah Lahore
50 Govt. Pilot Secondary School Wahdat Colony Lahore
51 Govt. ND Islamia HS Ichhra Lahore
52 Govt. HS Bowly Camp Lahore Cantt.
53 Govt. Dar-ul-Furqan HS Begum Pura Lahore
54 Govt. Islamia HS Mughal Pura Lahore
55 Govt. Millat HS Mughal Pura Lahore
56 Govt. Iqbal HS Garhi Shahu Lahore
57 Govt. Arif HS Mustafa Abad Lahore
58 Govt. Muslim HS Baghban Pura Lahore
59 Govt. HS Baghban Pura Lahore
60 Govt. Pakistan Model HS Rehman Pura Lahore
 List of Schools (Distt Chakwal)

S. No. Name of School

61 Govt. H/S Tehi Chakwal
62 Govt. H/S No.1 Talagang Chakwal
63 Govt. H/S Pira Fatehal Chakwal
64 Govt. H/S No.2 Chakwal
65 Govt. H/S No.1 Chakwal
66 Govt. Higher S/S Kallar Kahar Chakwal
67 Govt. H/S Khanpur Chakwal
68 Govt. H/S Hasola Chakwal
69 Govt. H/S Budhial Chakwal
70 Govt. H/S Ghazial Chakwal
71 Govt. H/S Kalis Chakwal
72 Govt. H/S Nachindi Chakwal
73 Govt. H/S Jand Chakwal
74 Govt. H/S Mulhal Mughlan Chakwal
75 Govt. H/S Shah Pur Syedian Chakwal
76 Govt. H/S Bheen Chakwal
77 Govt. Higher Secondary School Pad Shahan Chakwal
78 Govt. H/S Jasial Chakwal
79 Govt. H/S No.2 Talagang Chakwal
80 Govt. Girls H/S Nachindi Chakwal
81 Govt. Girls H/S Dhruggi Chakwal
82 Govt. Girls H/S Mulhal Mughlan Chakwal
83 Govt. Girls H/S Shah Pur Syedian Chakwal
84 Govt. Girls H/S Jand Chakwal
85 Govt. Girls H/S Kalis Chakwal
86 Govt. Higher Secondary School Saigolabad Chakwal
87 Govt. Girls H/S No.2 Chakwal
88 Govt. Girls H/S No.1 Chakwal
89 Govt. Girls H/S Jaswal Chakwal
90 Govt. Girls H/S Khanpur Chakwal
91 Govt. Girls H/S Padshahan Chakwal
 92 Govt. Girls H/S Hasola Chakwal
93 Govt. Girls H/S Bheen Chakwal
94 Govt. Girls H/S Saigolabad Chakwal
95 Govt. H/S Choa Saiden Shah Chakwal
96 Govt. Girls H/S/School Choa Saiden Shah Chakw al
List of Schools (Distt Sargodha)

S. No. Name of School

97 Govt. H/S Sultanabad Sargodha
98 Govt. Khaliqia H/S Sargodha
99 Govt. H/S No. 2 Sargodha
100 Govt. Model H/S No. 1 Sargodha
101 Govt. H/S Chak No. 47 N.B. Sargodha
102 Govt. M.C. H/S Satellite Town Sargodha
103 Govt. Comprehensive H/S Sargodha
104 Govt. Jamia Qasim-ul-uloom H/S Sargodha
105 Govt. H/S Chak No. 71 S.B. Sargodha
106 Govt. Islamia H/S Chak No. 29 S.B. Sargodha
107 Govt. H/S Mateela Sargodha
108 Govt. H/S Chak No. 75 S.B. Sargodha
109 Govt. Higher S/S Chak No. 40 S.B. Sargodha
110 Govt. Higher S/S Bhagtanwala Sargodha
111 Govt. H/S Tangowali Sargodha
112 Govt. H/S Chokera Sargodha
113 Govt. H/S Chak No. 54 S.B. Sargodha
114 Govt. Ambala Muslim H/S Sargodha
115 Govt. Central Model School Sargodha
116 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 27 S.B. Sargodha
117 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 75 S.B. Sargodha
118 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Chak No. 29 S.B. Sargodha
119 Govt. Girls Junior Model School Sargodha
120 Govt. M.C. girls H/S Satellite Town Sargodha
121 Govt. Ferogh-e-Taleem Girls H/S Sargodha
122 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Block No. 2 Sargodha
 123 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Block No. 26/27 (1st shift) Sargodha
124 Govt. National Girls H/S PAF Base Sargodha
125 Govt. Z. M. Girls H/S Sargodha
126 Govt. Girls Pilot Secondary School Sargodha
127 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 54 S.B. Sargodha
128 Govt. Girls H/S Chak No. 81 S.B. Sargodha
129 Govt. Comprehensive Girls H/S Sargodha
List of Schools (Distt Gujranwala)

S. No. Name of School

130 Govt. H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala

131 Govt. H/S Nizamabad Gujranwala

132 Govt. H/S Chak Baig Gujranwala

133 Govt. H/S Dhaunkal Gujranwala

134 Govt. Public H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala

135 Govt. Christian H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala

136 Govt. H/S Sohdra Gujranwala

137 Govt. H/S Manzoorabad Gujranwala

138 Govt. H/S Bharoke Cheema Gujranwala

139 Govt. Girls H/S Dhaunkal Gujranwala

140 Govt. S.K. Girls H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala

141 Govt. M.C. Girls H/S Wazirabad Gujranwala

142 Govt. Girls H/S Nizamabad Gujranwala

143 Govt. P. B. Model H/S Gujranwala

144 Govt. Islamia H/S No.2 Eminabad Gujranwala

145 Govt. H/S Kamoke Gujranwala

146 Govt. H/S Manchar Chatha Gujranwala

147 Govt. H/S Jaura Sian Gujranwala

148 Govt. H/S Dhillanwali Gujranwala

149 Govt. H/S Ali pur Chatha Gujranwala

150 Govt. H/S Rasul Nagar Gujranwala

 151 Govt. Shaqafat-ul-Banat H/S Gujranwala

152 Govt. Mission Girls H/S Gujranwala

153 Govt. Tehzib-ul-Banat Girls H/S Gujranwala

154 Govt. Gulzar-e-Islam Girls H/S Gujranwala

155 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Rasul Nagar Gujranwala

156 Govt. Girls H/S Jaura Sian Gujranwala

157 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Ghakhar Gujranwala

158 Govt. Girls H/S Ali Pur Chatha Gujranwala

159 Govt. Higher S/S G. T. Road Gujranwala

160 Govt. M. A. Islamia H/S Gujranwala

161 Govt. A. M. Islamia H/S No.1 Gujranwala

162 Govt. Jinnah Memorial Muslim H/S Gujranwala

163 Govt. H/S Ahmad Nagar Gujranwala

164 Govt. Girls H/S Rahwali Gujranwala

165 Govt. Gils H/S Garjakh Gujranwala

166 Govt. Higher Secondary School Gakhar Gujranwala

167 Govt. H/S Qila Mian Singh Gujranwala

168 Govt. Comprehensive School Gujranwala

169 Govt. H/S Aroop Gujranwala

170 Govt. H/S Rahwali Gujranwala

171 Govt. F. D. Model H/S Model Town Gujranwala

172 Govt. H/S No. 1 Gakhar Gujranwala

List of Schools (Distt. Dera Ghazi Khan)

S. No. Name of School

173 Govt. Comprehensive H/S D. G. Khan

174 Govt. Boys H/S No.2 D. G. Khan

175 Govt. City H/S D. G. Khan

176 Govt. H/S Samina D. G. Khan

177 Govt. H/ S Sokar D. G. Khan

 178 Govt. H/S Douna (Tounsa) D. G. Khan

179 Govt. Higher S/S Shadan Lund D. G. Khan

180 Govt. H/S Sarwarwali D. G. Khan

181 Govt. H/S Ahmdani D. G. Khan

182 Govt. Girls H/S Sarwarwali D. G. Khan

183 Govt. Girls H/S Mana Ahmdani D. G. Khan

184 Govt. Girls H/S Jhoke Uttra D. G. Khan

185 Govt. Girls H/S Gumraty D. G. Khan

186 Govt. Girls H/S Choti Zirin D. G. Khan

187 Govt. Girls H/S Langrotha Sharqui D. G. Khan

188 Govt. Girls H/S Mulla Quaid Shah D. G. Khan

189 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Tounsa D. G. Khan

190 Govt. Girls H/S Sokar D. G. Khan

191 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Vnewa D. G. Khan

192 Govt. Girls H/S Shadan Lund D. G. Khan

193 Govt. H/S Mian Phero D. G. Khan

194 Govt. H/S Kot D. G. Khan

195 Govt. H/S No. 1 D. G. Khan

196 Govt. H/S Pir Adil Jadeed D. G. Khan

197 Govt. H/S Gumraty D. G. Khan

198 Govt. H/S Tamachiwala D. G. Khan

199 Govt. H/S Mana Ahmdani D. G. Khan

200 Govt. H/S Ghoas Abad D. G. Khan

List of Schools (Distt. Faisal Abad)

S. No. Name of School

201 Govt. M. C. H/S Samanabad Faisal Abad

202 Govt. L. C. M. Model H/S Faisal Abad

203 Govt. Crescent Model H/S Faisal Abad

204 Govt. Jamia Chishtia H/S Faisal Abad

205 Govt. Islamia H/S Jinnah Colony Faisal Abad

206 Govt. Comprehensive Model H/S Faisal Abad

207 Govt. Islami Madrassa H/S Muhammad pura Faisal Abad

208 Govt. A. V. Modern H/S Faisal Abad

209 Govt. M. C. H/S 224/RB Faisal Abad

210 Govt. Higher S/S Dijkot Faisal Abad

211 Govt. Iqbal H/S 267/RB Faisal Abad

212 Govt. H/S 49/JB Faisal Abad

213 Govt. H/S 118/GB Faisal Abad

214 Govt. H/S 275/RB Faisal Abad

215 Govt. Agro Tech. H/S 226/RB Faisal Abad

216 Govt. H/S 236/RB Faisal Abad

217 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Mansoorabad Faisal Abad

218 Govt. Girls H/S Gulistan Colony Faisal Abad

219 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Hajiabad Faisal Abad

220 Govt. M. C. Girls H/S Islam Nagar No.1 Faisal Abad

221 Govt. Girls H/S 527/GB Faisal Abad

222 Govt. Girls H/S 203/RB Manawala Faisal Abad

223 Govt. Girls H/S 198/RB Faisal Abad

224 Govt. Girls H/S 85/JB Faisal Abad

225 Govt. Girls H/S 257/RB Faisal Abad

226 Govt. Girls Higher S/S 267/RB Faisal Abad

227 Govt. M. C. Girls Higher S/S Samanabad Faisal Abad

228 Govt. Girls H/S 84/JB Faisal Abad

229 Govt. Girls Higher S/S 30/JB Faisal Abad

230 Govt. Girls H/S 192/ GB Faisal Abad

231 Govt. Girls H/S 197/ GB Faisal Abad

232 Govt. Girls H/S 467/JB Faisal Abad

233 Govt. H/S 198/ GB Faisal Abad

 234 Govt. Qadria Sirajia H/S 30/JB Faisal Abad

235 Govt. H/S 257/RB Faisal Abad

236 Govt. H/S 84/JB Faisal Abad

237 Govt. Tariq Islamia H/S 254/RB Faisal Abad

List of Schools (Distt. Sahiwal)

S. No. Name of School

238 Govt. H/S 78/5-R Sahiwal

239 Govt. H/S 100/A-6-R Sahiwal

240 Govt. Batala Muslim H/S Sahiwal

241 Govt. H/S 95/9-L Sahiwal

242 Govt. H/S 82/6-R Sahiwal

243 Govt. H/S 118/9-L Sahiwal

244 Govt. H/S 5/11-L Sahiwal

245 Govt. H/S 75/5-R Sahiwal

246 Govt. H/S 111/9-L Sahiwal

247 Govt. H/S 101/9-L Sahiwal

248 Govt. H/S Nungal Ambia No. 2 Sahiwal

249 Govt. H/S Sahiwal

250 Govt. H/S 78/5-L Sahiwal

251 Govt. H/S 134/9-L Sahiwal

252 Govt. H/S 87/6-R Sahiwal

253 Govt. H/S Urban Area Sahiwal

254 Govt. H/S Kot Deramal Sahiwal

255 Govt. H/S 64/4-R Sahiwal

256 Govt. Girls M. P. Secondary School Sahiwal

257 Govt. Girls M. C. City H/S Sahiwal

258 Govt. Girls Model Pilot School Sahiwal

259 Govt. Girls H/S Sahiwal

260 Govt. Girls H/S 8/11-L Sahiwal

 261 Govt. Girls H/S 5/11-L Sahiwal

262 Govt. Girls H/S 115/12-L Sahiwal

263 Govt. Girls H/S 92/12-L Sahiwal

264 Govt. Girls H/S 9/14-L Sahiwal

265 Govt. Girls H/S 98/12-L Sahiwal

266 Govt. Girls H/S 39/12-L Sa hiwal

267 Govt. H/S Chichawatani City Sahiwal

268 Govt. H/S 59/ GD Sahiwal

269 Govt. H/S 89/6-R Sahiwal

270 Govt. Nangal Ambia H/S No. 1 Sahiwal

List of Schools (Distt. Bahawalpur)

S. No. Name of School

271 Govt. Fazil H/S Ahmadpur East Bahawalpur

272 Govt. Higher S/S Lal Sohanra Bahawalpur

273 Govt. H/S 45/ DB Bahawalpur

274 Govt. H/S 117/ DB Bahawalpur

275 Govt. Higher S/S 36/ DNB Bahawalpur

276 Govt. H/S 41/ DB Bahawalpur

277 Govt. H/S Jamalpur Bahawalpur

278 Govt. H/S 19/ DNB Bahawalpur

279 Govt. H/S Khanqah Sharif Bahawalpur

280 Govt. H/S Fattowali Bahawalpur

281 Govt. Fazil H/S Khairpur Tamewali Bahawalpur

282 Govt. H/S 44/ DNB Bahawalpur

283 Govt. H/S Jheelanwali Bahawalpur

284 Govt. Girls H/S 42/ DB Bahawalpur

285 Govt. Girls H/S Dera Nawab Sahib Bahawalpur

286 Govt. Girls H/S 41/ DB Bahawalpur

287 Govt. Girls Higher S/S Chaha Fathe Khan Bahawalpur

 288 Govt. Girls H/S 36/ DNB Bahawalpur

289 Govt. Girls H/S 88/ DB Bahawalpur

290 Govt. Girls H/S Model Ahmadpur East Bahawalpur

291 Govt. Girls H/S Yazman Bahawalpur

292 Govt. Girls H/S Hasilpur Mandi Bahawalpur

293 Govt. Girls H/S Mahajir Colony Bahawalpur

294 Govt. Girls H/S Comprehensive Bahawalpur

295 Govt. Girls H/S 13/ BC Bahawalpur

296 Govt. Girls H/S Qaimpur Bahawalpur

297 Govt. Girls H/S 58/ F Bahawalpur

298 Govt. Girls H/S Community Bahawalpur

299 Govt. H/S Cantt. Bahawalpur

300 Govt. H/S Yazman Bahawalpur

List of Schools (Miscellaneous)

S. No. Name of School

301 Govt. Iqbal H/S G. T. Road Gujranwala

302 Govt. H/S Gujranwala

303 Govt. Public H/S Gujranwala

304 Govt. H/S Abdal Gujranwala

305 Govt. Model H/S Gujranwala

306 Govt. Aligarh English Girls H/S Gujranwala

307 Govt. Girls Model H/S Satellite Town Gujranwala

308 Govt. comprehensive H/S No. 2 Sahiwal

309 Govt. H/S 97/6-R Sahiwal

310 Govt. H/S 56/G-D Sahiwal

 Appendix H
From: asifphd@hotmail.com
To: anjumehrotra2000@gmail.com; anjumehrotra2000@yahoo.com
Subject: Humble Request
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:46:15 +0500

Dr. Anju Mehrotra

IGNOU PSC, Programme Incharge,

Kalka Institute for Research and Advanced Studies, Alaknanda,

New Delhi.

Subject: Kind Permission for the use of Research Instrument

Most Respected Madam,

Hope you are enjoying good health and job. Having come to know through your dissertation
that you have conducted a research on leadership styles of principals. I congratulate you on
successful completion of your doctoral degree.

Respected madam, I am Mr. Asif Iqbal a Ph.D. scholar in Institute of Education and
Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. I am also working on leadership styles. The
title of my dissertation is ‘A Comparative Study of the Impact of Principals’ Leadership S tyles on
Job Satisfaction of Teachers’.

I need an instrument about job satisfaction. Your research instrument of job satisfaction
scale for teachers I have studied is most appropriate tool for my research. I therefore humbly
request you to allow and send me your (JSST) so that I may complete my doctoral degree.

Thank you in anticipation.

Yours Truly,

Asif Iqbal Ph.D. Scholar IER,

University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Asifphd@hotmail.com #03214365280

May 25, 2009.

 Appendix I

Re: Humble Request

From:
anju mehrotra (anjumehrotra2000@yahoo.com)
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:41:12 AM
To: asif iqbal (asifphd@hotmail.com)
Mr. Asif,
This is to grant you the permission to use my tool on Job Satisfaction. I wish you all the very best
for your Ph.D. May you get success in your endeavour.
If you wish to have the item wise distribution of statements in questionnaire, I can send it again.

BEST OF LUCK
DR. ANJU

--- On Sun, 24/5/09, asif iqbal <asifphd@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: asif iqbal <asifphd@hotmail.com>

Subject: Humble Request
To: "anjumehrotra2000@gmail.com" <anjumehrotra2000@gmail.com>, "anjumehrotra2000@yahoo.com"
<anjumehrotra2000@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, 24 May, 2009, 10:17 PM