unlimited access with print and download

Free

Continue searching

Leadership Style, Employee Satisfaction, and Productivity in the Enrollment Department of a Proprietary University

Dissertation
Author: James Chitwood
Abstract:
The success of an enrollment department is critical to the success of an educational institution. The quantitative research study used a correlational design to measure the relationship between perceived leadership style, employee satisfaction, and departmental productivity. A sample of 41 admissions personnel from a Midwest proprietary university completed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X-Short and the Abridged Job Descriptive Index / Abridged Job (AJDI/AJIG) In General instruments. Departmental performance was provided by institutional data. Results indicate (a) a strong relationship between perceived leadership style and satisfaction, (b) no relationship between leadership style and organizational performance, and (c) no relationship between job satisfaction and performance. Implications for leadership include hiring and training leaders to exhibit the leadership behaviors that lead to employee satisfaction.

Table of Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Background of the Problem ....................................................................................... 1

Leadership, Employee Satisfaction, and Productivity ........................................ 2

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 4

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 5

Significance of the Problem ....................................................................................... 6

Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 7

Significance of the Study to Leadership ............................................................. 7

Nature of the Study .................................................................................................... 8

Overview of the Research Method ..................................................................... 8

Overview of the Design Appropriateness ........................................................... 9

Research Questions .................................................................................................. 10

Hypotheses ............................................................................................................... 11

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 13

Other Research in the Field .............................................................................. 14

Controversies in the Field ................................................................................. 14

Definition of Terms.................................................................................................. 14

Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 15

Scope and Limitations.............................................................................................. 15

Delimitations ............................................................................................................ 16

Summary .................................................................................................................. 16

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ......................................................................... 18

Title Searches ........................................................................................................... 19

Historical Overview ................................................................................................. 20

Scientific Management ..................................................................................... 20

Human Relations Leadership ............................................................................ 21

Moral Leadership .............................................................................................. 22

Transactional Leadership .................................................................................. 23

Transformational Leadership ............................................................................ 24

Servant Leadership ........................................................................................... 25

Value-Based Leadership ................................................................................... 26

Transactional and Transformational Leadership .............................................. 27

Current Findings ...................................................................................................... 27

Behavior Improvement ..................................................................................... 28

Process Improvement ........................................................................................ 29

Leadership Plane ...................................................................................................... 30

Transactional ..................................................................................................... 31

Transformational ............................................................................................... 32

Variations .......................................................................................................... 34

Extremes ........................................................................................................... 34

Unique Combinations ....................................................................................... 35

Learning Leadership ................................................................................................ 35

Adapt to the Environment ................................................................................. 36

Expand Capabilities .......................................................................................... 36

Leadership and Employee Satisfaction .................................................................... 36

Participative Leadership ................................................................................... 38

Environment of Trust ........................................................................................ 38

Transformational Leadership and Employee Satisfaction ................................ 38

Leadership and Productivity .................................................................................... 39

The Environment .............................................................................................. 39

Transactional Leadership .................................................................................. 40

Transformational Leadership ............................................................................ 40

Satisfaction and Productivity ................................................................................... 41

Job Stress .......................................................................................................... 41

Service-Profit-Chain ......................................................................................... 42

Context Remains to Study ....................................................................................... 43

Studied Environments ....................................................................................... 43

Limited Studied Environments ......................................................................... 44

Higher Education ..................................................................................................... 44

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 46

Summary .................................................................................................................. 47

Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................... 50

Research Method and Design Appropriateness ....................................................... 52

Research Method .............................................................................................. 52

Research Design ............................................................................................... 53

Hypotheses ............................................................................................................... 55

Population ................................................................................................................ 57

Sampling Frame ....................................................................................................... 58

Informed Consent ............................................................................................. 59

Confidentiality .................................................................................................. 59

Geographic Location ........................................................................................ 61

Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 62

Instruments ............................................................................................................... 64

MLQ ................................................................................................................. 65

AJDI/AJIG ........................................................................................................ 66 JDI Validity ...................................................................................................... 67

MLQ Validity ................................................................................................... 67

Reliability ......................................................................................................... 68

Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................ 69

Internal Validity ................................................................................................ 70

External Validity ............................................................................................... 71

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 71

Summary .................................................................................................................. 73

Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................... 74

Data Gathering and Recording................................................................................. 74

Descriptive Statistical Findings ............................................................................... 75

Sample Size Power ........................................................................................... 75

Demographics ................................................................................................... 75

Reliability of Leadership Scales ....................................................................... 80

Reliability of Work Scales ................................................................................ 84

Primary Correlation Findings .................................................................................. 86

Research Questions ........................................................................................... 86

Hypotheses ............................................................................................................... 86

Hypothesis 1 ..................................................................................................... 87

Hypothesis 2 ..................................................................................................... 89

Hypothesis 3 ..................................................................................................... 90

Summary .................................................................................................................. 92

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................... 95

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 95

Leadership Significance ........................................................................................... 97

Limitations and Assumptions .................................................................................. 97

Limitations ........................................................................................................ 97

Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 98

Implications of the Study to Leadership .................................................................. 98

Hypothesis 1 ..................................................................................................... 98

Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................................... 100

Hypothesis 3 ................................................................................................... 101

Specific Implications to College and University Leadership ......................... 102

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 104

Recommendations to Proprietary College and University Leadership ........... 104

Recommendations to Future Research ........................................................... 106

Summary ................................................................................................................ 107

References .............................................................................................................. 109

Appendix A: Cover Letter ..................................................................................... 122

Appendix B: Informed Consent ............................................................................. 125

Appendix C: Demographic Sheet .......................................................................... 128

Appendix D: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ............................................. 130

Appendix E: Abridged Job Description Index ....................................................... 132

Appendix F: Permission to Use AJDI/AJIG Instrument........................................ 134

Appendix G: Permission to Use MLQ Instrument ................................................ 136

List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Literature Review

................................................................... 19 Table 2 Respondents by Gender

.............................................................................. 75 Table 3 Respondents by School Location

................................................................ 76 Table 4 Respondents by Enrollment Period

............................................................. 77 Table 5 Gender Differences

..................................................................................... 79 Table 6 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability of Leadership Scales

................................... 81 Table 7 Means of Main Leadership Styles

............................................................... 82 Table 8 Means of Leadership Components

.............................................................. 83 Table 9 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability of Work Scales

............................................ 84 Table 10 Means of Job Characteristics Ratings

...................................................... 85 Table 11 Mean Overall Organizational Performance

............................................. 85 Table 12 Perceived Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction Correlations

................ 88 Table 13 Perceived Leadership Styles and Productivity Correlations

.................... 90 Table 14 Overall Job Satisfaction and Overall Organizational Performance

........ 90

1

Chapter 1: Introduction Understanding the dynamics of leadership style is not a new area of inquiry. Many studies have indicated leadership style has a positive relationship with employee satisfaction and employee productivity (DeClerk, 2008; Klinsontorn, 2007; Muterera, 2008; Peters, 1997; Politis, 2005). The environments in which leadership studies have occurred have ranged from hospitals, to manufacturing, to the military, and even to universities (Adeogun, 2008; Archbold, 2004; Bechtold, 2006; Behery, 2008; Chen, 2008; Cincotta, 2005; Daenzer, 2009). Previous researchers have examined administrative or line positions. Universities’ scholars have looked at faculty and staff (Adeogun, 2008; Bakuzonis, 2007; Chen, Yang, Shiau & Wang, 2006; Hermsen & Rosser, 2008). Limited studies directly link a specific leadership style with employee satisfaction and productivity within a sales force (Archbold, 2004). The purpose of the study was to analyze the relationship between leadership style, employee satisfaction, and productivity within the sales-oriented enrollment departments of a proprietary Midwestern university. Background of the Problem The earliest knowledge of American management writings was the study of managing slaves. Hoopes (2003) wrote that the plantations represented the largest private enterprises in the nation. Owners shared writings on how to manage the labor force and the plantation operations effectively. The purpose was to understand how to maximize productivity and maintain the workforce for the longest duration possible. After slavery was abolished, the industrial age flourished in America. Free labor was no longer a management option, making the knowledge of how to maximize the

2

productivity of a paid workforce important. Time motion studies indicating how to maximize the productivity of a factory worker by requiring the least amount of effort began with the industrialized period (Darmody, 2007; Phelps, Parayitam, & Olson, 2007). The time motion studies measured the efficiency between energy use and productivity maximization. Leadership studies evolved and looked further into worker productivity as managers realized that the heart and mind of employees, not just the movement of their bodies, mattered to productivity. Employee satisfaction became a relevant research topic for leadership studies (Phelps et al., 2007). Productivity included more than the mechanistic perspective of motion; the humanistic perspective of people is an important consideration. American leadership study began with analyzing the maximization of productivity (Hoopes, 2003) and later studies have returned to this topic; the study of leadership has come full circle. The difference shown in early leadership studies is the qualification that all the previous research has become part of the new platform of study. Research included how to maximize productivity through the development of the leader (Aarons, 2006; Bass, 1999a). The leader contributes to productivity through many variables; one variable is employee satisfaction. Leadership, Employee Satisfaction, and Productivity. Effective leadership is essential to move productivity beyond mediocrity toward the level of exceptionality (Klinsontorn, 2007). For a leader to increase the output of the organization, an understanding of what behaviors increase productivity is important. A leader must be aware that there is more to being successful than showing up to work. The style of

3

leadership used has been proven a critical variable in the effectiveness of leadership (Aarons, 2006; Archbold, 2004; Bass, 1985, 1999a; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bechtold, 2006; Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007; Chen, 2008; Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Fairholm, 2004; Green, 2007; Humphreys, 2005; Kirkbride, 2006; Klinsontorn, 2007; Murphy, 2005; Sideman, 2006). Many variables affect employee satisfaction. Matzler and Renzl (2006) demonstrated the organizational environment has an impact on employee satisfaction. Having a voice in the direction of the organization influences employee satisfaction (Duserick, Huang, & Dai, 2007; Kim, 2002; Madlock, 2008). While the previously mentioned variables have an influence, leaders play the critical role in employee satisfaction. Without properly trained leadership, employee satisfaction will suffer. Organizational leaders need to understand the importance of the link between leadership style and the satisfaction of employees (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Berson & Linton, 2005). The actions of the leader will determine whether employees are experiencing positive satisfaction at work. Multiple studies have been conducted on the efficacy of leadership styles. Analysis has also occurred on the relationship between leadership styles and employee satisfaction as well as employee productivity (DeClerk, 2008; Klinsontorn, 2007; Muterera, 2008; Peters, 1997; Politis, 2005). Evidence indicates there is little doubt that leadership style influences the employee in either positive or negative ways depending on the style used or the environment. The environment is where there is value in further

4

research. The context in which a study occurs is an important variable that still needs further research. According to Avolio (2007) and Berson and Linton (2005) understanding context and the setting in which leadership takes place is a needed element for leadership research. The study focused on a proprietary university’s enrollment department. The framework of this department has not been studied previously, which allows for insight into an area without empirical data. The data gained from the study will further leadership knowledge by providing a new element to the understanding of organizational leadership and effectiveness. Statement of the Problem Leadership is a set of skills and abilities used by people to influence their employees and the environment around them (Kouzes, 2003). The influence has positive and negative effects that compel the satisfaction of employees. While studies have been conducted to analyze the relationship between leadership and employee satisfaction (Sample, 2002), no studies have been conducted to examine the effect of these leadership styles within the context of specific work environments (Berson & Linton, 2005). Leaders affect employee satisfaction (Chen, 2008; Finn, 2008; Ozmen, 2008) and satisfaction affects work-related outcomes (Chow & Keng-Howe, 2006) such as student satisfaction, student retention, employee productivity, employee retention, and organizational performance. The general problem is that leadership is often focused on the tasks that make employees more productive without realizing the impact leadership style has upon satisfaction and performance.

5

Duserick et al. (2007) pointed out that effective leadership leads to high employee satisfaction that has an increase in productivity. As negative leadership is shown to have a negative effect upon employee satisfaction (Duserick et al., 2007), the specific problem is leadership in the enrollment department of proprietary universities may contribute to the dissatisfaction of enrollment personnel. The dissatisfaction may be potentially harming the enrollment productivity of the department. Leadership within an educational setting is not well understood (Smith & Adams, 2008). Having a more thorough understanding of the effects of leadership on employee satisfaction and performance within an educational setting will assist university leaders in creating strategies to reach enrollment objectives. A quantitative correlational analysis of the leader-follower relationship was used to study this phenomenon. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative study was to analyze the degree of relationship between the perceived leadership style expressed by the front-line enrollment managers, employee satisfaction of the enrollment personnel and their subsequent performance. The data was analyzed by comparing the performance data for the campuses where the participants work to explore the opportunity for a relationship to exist. The population for the study were employees at a proprietary university. A quantitative method research study with a correlation design was employed to analyze the perceived leadership style of front-line enrollment managers with the job satisfaction of enrollment personnel to determine if any relationship exists. The data regarding leadership style and job satisfaction was analyzed by comparing performance

6

data to observe whether a relationship exists. The target population for the study was the enrollment personnel of a proprietary private university. The university has campuses throughout the United States of America. Two hundred and four enrollment personnel work for the university. Using a confidence level of 95% provides a required sample size of 104 participants. According to Creswell (2005) the upper and lower values represent where the actual population mean is likely to likely to occur. The target sample size was determined using the Bold sample size calculator (Bold-ed, 2009). The independent variable of leadership style was defined using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Third Edition, Form 5x-Short from Bass and Avolio (2004). The MLQ was used to measure the leadership style of the front-line enrollment managers as perceived by the enrollment personnel. The dependent variable of job satisfaction was measured using Smith, Kendall, and Hulin’s Abridged Job Descriptive Index / Abridged Job In General (AJDI/AJIG) (Balzer et al., 2000). The dependent variable of departmental performance came from the data on campus performance. Quantitative correlational research was used to explain the association between variables (Creswell, 2005). The association or relationship between leadership style, employee satisfaction, and organizational performance was analyzed in the study. The quantitative correlation method is the appropriate process for understanding the purpose of the study. Significance of the Problem Leadership studies have not properly analyzed the leader-follower relationship within the specific context of a proprietary university’s enrollment department. To this

7

end, the significance of the study is explained. The information presented explains the rational for conducting this study. Also presented is information on the significance of this study to leadership. Significance of the Study Leadership within educational settings is not fully understood (Smith & Adams, 2008). The leadership of a proprietary university’s enrollment department is an even less known area of study. As college and university budgets are reliant upon student enrollment (Archambault, 2008), it is imperative that these schools meet their enrollment targets. Missing enrollment targets means a loss in revenue, which equates to a decrease in the overall budget. Proprietary college and university leaders are facing increased expectations for a greater return on investment (Henley, 2007; Ruffins, 2007). These schools are solely reliant upon enrollment tuition for revenue funding (Archambault, 2008). Schools do not receive a state government subsidy or endowment to guard against revenue declines from lost enrollment. Proprietary colleges and universities must meet enrollment projections in order to meet the financial obligations of the school. Understanding the relationship between enrollment management, employee satisfaction, and productivity is critical to the success of a proprietary institution. Understanding the relationship will further leadership study by expanding knowledge about the relationships between leadership, satisfaction, and performance within the context of proprietary education. Significance of the Study to Leadership. The relationship between leadership and employee satisfaction is well documented. A minority of studies has not identified a

8

relationship (Rupe, 2007; Spotts, 2004); the majority of the results of previous studies indicated a relationship exists between leadership and employee satisfaction (Bechtold, 2006; Berson & Linton, 2005; Chen, 2008; Cincotta, 2005; Daenzer, 2009; Duserick et al., 2007; Kochan, 2006; Madlock, 2008; Manning, 2009; Matzler & Renzl, 2006; Peters, 1997; Sideman, 2006). The significance of the study to leadership is the additional knowledge the study provides by researching a population that had not been analyzed previously. Multitudes of studies have used varied research instruments to view employee satisfaction (Bechtold, 2006; Berson & Linton, 2005; Chen, 2008; Cincotta, 2005; Daenzer, 2009; Kochan, 2006; Peters, 1998). Populations ranging from retail, to healthcare, to education have been studied. In education, the administration and faculty populations have participated in research. None of the identified research was focused on the enrollment department of a proprietary university. The study broadens the use of the employee satisfaction instrument (AJDI) and furthers the knowledge of employee satisfaction by analyzing an unstudied population. The study adds to leadership knowledge and literature by providing insight into the context of leadership within a proprietary educational setting. Understanding the context and setting in which leadership takes place is a necessary element for leadership research (Avolio, 2007). Nature of the Study Overview of the Research Method. The quantitative correlational research study was conducted to explore the relationship or the possibility of a relationship between the independent variable of leadership style with the dependent variables of employee

9

satisfaction and productivity in the enrollment department of a proprietary university. The population consisted of enrollment personnel within the enrollment departments of 19 university campuses across the United States. Using a 95% confidence level the target sample size was expected to be 104 enrollment personnel.

Correlation studies are best used to measure the relationship between two or more variables, such as the degree of association between the variables of leadership style and employee satisfaction. Quantitative and qualitative research designs are used to analyze and explore information using different methods for varied purposes (Creswell, 2005). Investigators use quantitative studies to explore rigid data in an attempt to create predictions or descriptions of the information. Qualitative studies are designed to promote understanding perceptions of phenomenon. Quantitative studies are broad in scope and include data from large populations of participants with instruments that have a high level of validity. Qualitative questionnaires use a limited number of participants in an interview format. Overview of the Design Appropriateness. Creswell (2005) wrote that a quantitative research design is appropriate to describe trends and explain relationships between variables. Qualitative research designs are appropriate to understand a phenomenon where little previous knowledge exists. Both methods of study are used to collect data with approaches more appropriate to the specifics of the study. Quantitative studies take a direct path to data collection through concrete research techniques producing observable and measurable data. Qualitative methods of study use interviewing techniques with open-ended questions designed to gather experiences and perceptions. The data collected during the interviews are transcribed into text for trend

10

analysis. Quantitative methods use statistical analysis to analyze the data gathered from specific research instruments. The use of a quantitative correlational design provided the opportunity to analyze the relationship between the independent variable of leadership style with the dependant variables of employee satisfaction and performance. Creswell (2005) wrote “Correlational designs provide an opportunity for the researcher to predict scores and explain the relationship among variables” (p. 325). Using the correlational method will indicate the degree of association between the dependant variables and the independent variable. Research Questions Previous research does not provide sufficient evidence that a correlation exists between leadership style, employee satisfaction, and productivity in the enrollment department of a Midwest proprietary university. The context of this specific environment has not been studied. Forty-six dissertations were published and recorded in ProQuest between 2004 and 2009 that dealt with a possible relationship between leadership style and employee satisfaction. Berson and Linton (2005) pointed out that extensive research has been conducted identifying a positive relationship between transformational and transactional leadership as related to employee satisfaction. Transformational leadership has been positively correlated with employee satisfaction in administrative positions (Bechtold, 2006; Berson & Linton, 2005; Chen, 2008; Cincotta, 2005; Daenzer, 2009; Duserick et al., 2007; Kochan, 2006; Madlock, 2008; Manning, 2009; Matzler & Renzl, 2006; Peters, 1997; Sideman, 2006). Peters (1998) demonstrated transactional leadership has an association

11

with employee satisfaction. What is the relationship between perceived leadership styles and employee satisfaction within the sales-oriented enrollment department of a proprietary Midwestern university? With 132 doctoral dissertations published between 2004 and 2009, a clear emphasis exists on the need to understand the appropriate leadership style to create productive employees. Archbold (2004) argued that transactional leadership could effectively produce results for an organization. DeClerk (2008) argued that transformational leadership positively relates to employee productivity. What is the relationship between perceived leadership styles and departmental productivity within the enrollment department of a proprietary Midwestern university? Employee satisfaction and the relationship to productivity is an inconsistently studied topic (Christen et al., 2006). While there are multiple instruments and methods used to study the topic, the research points to a positive relationship between satisfied employees and increased productivity (Homburg & Stock, 2005; Sideman, 2006; Simpson, 2006, Wiley, Brooks & Lundby, 2006). What is the relationship between job satisfaction and the productivity of enrollment personnel? Hypotheses Three sets of hypotheses are included in the quantitative correlation study to determine if an association exists between the independent variable and the two dependant variables. The following hypotheses align with the research questions. The first hypothesis is composed to address perceived leadership style and employee satisfaction:

12

H1 0 : No statistically significant evidence will exist indicating a positive relationship between the perceived leadership styles of enrollment leadership, as measured by the MLQ, and job satisfaction of enrollment personnel, as measured by the AJDI/AJIG, in a proprietary Midwestern university. H1 A : Statistically significant evidence will exist indicating a positive relationship between the perceived leadership styles of enrollment leadership, as measured by the MLQ, and job satisfaction of enrollment personnel, as measured by the AJDI/AJIG, in a proprietary Midwestern university. The second hypothesis is constructed to address perceived leadership style and productivity: H2 0 : No statistically significant evidence will exist indicating a positive relationship between the perceived leadership styles of enrollment leadership, as measured by the MLQ, and the productivity of enrollment personnel, as provided by organizational data, in a proprietary Midwestern university. H2 A : Statistically significant evidence will exist indicating a positive relationship between the perceived leadership styles of enrollment leadership, as measured by the MLQ, and the productivity of enrollment personnel, as provided by organizational data, in a proprietary Midwestern university. The third hypothesis is developed to address job satisfaction and productivity: H3 0 : No statistically significant evidence will exist of a positive relationship between job satisfaction, as measured by the AJDI/AJIG, and the productivity of enrollment personnel, as provided by organizational data, in a proprietary university.

13

H3 A : Statistically significant evidence will exist of a positive relationship between job satisfaction, as measured by the AJDI/AJIG, and the productivity of enrollment personnel, as provided by organizational data, in a proprietary university. Statistical testing will be used to examine the null and alternative hypotheses to determine if a statistically significant relationship exists between leadership style, employee job satisfaction, and productivity in the enrollment departments of a proprietary university. Accepting the null hypothesis will indicate that no statistically significant relationship exists. Rejecting the null hypothesis will indicate acceptance of the alternative hypothesis and indicate a significant relationship exists (Creswell, 2005). Theoretical Framework The broad theoretical framework for the study shows different types of organizational leadership and the impact leadership type has upon employee satisfaction and productivity. Specifically, the purpose of this research was to focus on the existence of a possible connection between leadership, job satisfaction, and departmental productivity. The data derived from the study was used to identify the possible existence of transformational and transactional leadership within the enrollment departments of a proprietary university using the MLQ. Using the AJDI/AJIG will identify the job satisfaction of employees within the enrollment department of the university. Measuring the possibility of an association between the two variables will facilitate further knowledge regarding leadership styles and job satisfaction. Existent in the framework of organizational leadership is the third topic of productivity. This often-studied subject is important to any organization and extremely

14

important to a proprietary university. Understanding how to create an increasingly productive enrollment department may assist university leadership in expanding the student population. The area of organizational leadership within a university environment may benefit from the three focus areas of the study. Other Research in the Field. The literature about the satisfaction of employees within a university has centered on staff and faculty, general administration, but not the employees within an enrollment department (Adeogun, 2008; Bakuzonis, 2007; Chen et al., 2006; Hermsen & Rosser, 2008). The study includes specifically the evidence of leadership style, the satisfaction of employees, and productivity within the enrollment department of a proprietary university. The knowledge gained from the study will aid future leadership studies regarding job satisfaction and employee productivity that focus on a university setting. Controversies in the Field. Job satisfaction, while often studied, is inconsistently analyzed. Many variables identified through research are listed as strengthening job satisfaction. This satisfaction is explained to increase productivity. Employee satisfaction is related to customer satisfaction that relates to productivity (Simpson, 2006). Without research specifically studying the satisfaction of sales personnel, there is little supporting evidence that sales employees need to be satisfied in order to be productive. No identified studies included analysis of the sales-oriented enrollment department of a proprietary university. Without empirical evidence, there is no indication of whether enrollment personnel within a proprietary university need to be satisfied in order to be productive. Definition of Terms

15

The definition of terms appears in alphabetical order. Abridged Job Descriptive Index (AJDI). The AJDI shows measures of job satisfaction using five scales: (a) work on present job, (b) present pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, and (e) coworkers (Balzer et al., 2000). Abridged Job in General (AJIG). The AJIG measures employees’ generalized feelings toward their jobs (Balzer et al., 2000). Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is a method of motivation through the exchange of benefits (Aarons, 2006). Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is a method motivation through the alignment of employees’ intrinsic goals with organizational objectives (Bass, 1999a). Assumptions Assumptions regarding the quantitative correlational study are included to provide clarity of the basis for general understanding. One assumption is the enrollment personnel of the proprietary university are willing participants. Another assumption is the participants provided truthful and honest responses to the survey instruments. One additional assumption is that the instruments have a high level of validity. Scope and Limitations The scope of the study includes the exploration of the possibility that an association exists between the independent variable of leadership style and the dependent variables of employee satisfaction and productivity. The population for the study is the enrollment departments of a proprietary university.

16

The limitations of this study are derived from the instrument measuring perceived leadership style. The variable of leadership style was measured as it is perceived due to the limited number of managers. The managers would need to be surveyed directly in order to gain direct responses regarding leadership style. The limited number of managers required that the employees are surveyed regarding their perception of the managers’ leadership style. Delimitations The study included surveying the enrollment personnel of a proprietary university. The study focus included leadership style, employee satisfaction, and productivity. Only the defined variables and participants were included in the study. The sample was delimited to 104 enrollment personnel from the 19 campuses that make up the university. This will allow the study findings to be generalized to the school’s population. Summary Chapter 1 consisted of the explanation that leadership studies have not focused on the specifics of varied environments. The need to study leadership contexts in order to understand the specific relationships exists (Avolio, 2007; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Berson & Linton, 2005). Leaders need to improve their understanding about how leadership styles become increasingly or less effective within particular environments. The study adds to the body of knowledge by measuring the relationship between leadership style, employee satisfaction, and productivity within a proprietary university’s enrollment department. The value of the study is evidenced by improving leaders’ understanding of how this specific context of a sales-oriented environment relates to leadership style.

Full document contains 151 pages
Abstract: The success of an enrollment department is critical to the success of an educational institution. The quantitative research study used a correlational design to measure the relationship between perceived leadership style, employee satisfaction, and departmental productivity. A sample of 41 admissions personnel from a Midwest proprietary university completed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X-Short and the Abridged Job Descriptive Index / Abridged Job (AJDI/AJIG) In General instruments. Departmental performance was provided by institutional data. Results indicate (a) a strong relationship between perceived leadership style and satisfaction, (b) no relationship between leadership style and organizational performance, and (c) no relationship between job satisfaction and performance. Implications for leadership include hiring and training leaders to exhibit the leadership behaviors that lead to employee satisfaction.