• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Joseph Dewayne Handsome
Abstract:
Job satisfaction is the key contributor to an organization's quality, revenue, and productivity. Job dissatisfaction can lead to employee retention issues, reduced productivity, and ultimately, failure of the company. A company's leadership style can be a cause of job dissatisfaction. Therefore, the purpose of this quantitative correlation study was to determine the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. The research questions for the study examined this relationship by utilizing motivation hygiene theory as a foundation. The study used the Job Descriptive Index and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to gather data from 51 respondents from the Walden participant pool. The Pearson correlation coefficient determined that job satisfaction increased with transformational leadership styles and decreased with laissez-faire leadership styles. This study contributes to positive social change by identifying the leadership styles that contribute to job satisfaction, thereby enabling organizations to develop strategies to heighten job satisfaction, which may increase employee retention, quality, and revenue.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.............................................v LIST OF FIGURES...........................................vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION....................................1 Problem Statement .......................................3 Purpose of the Study ....................................5 Nature of the Study .....................................6 Research Questions and Hypotheses .......................6 Theoretical Base of the Study ...........................8 Operational Definitions of Technical Terms .............11 Assumptions ............................................13 Limitations ............................................14 Scope and Delimitations ................................15 Significance of the Study ..............................15 Social Change ..........................................16 Summary ................................................17 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW..............................18 Historical Review ......................................19 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ............................22 Motivation Hygiene Theory ..............................27 Leadership Style .......................................34 Additional Leadership Theories .........................38 Job Satisfaction .......................................39 Job Satisfaction and Leadership Style ..................46 Summary ................................................49 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD................................51 Introduction ...........................................51 Research Design and Approach ...........................51 Research Questions and Hypothesis ......................53 Setting and Sample .....................................55 Instrumentation and Materials ..........................55 Data Collection and Analysis ...........................59 Protection of Participants’ Rights .....................62 Role of the Researcher .................................63 Conclusion .............................................64 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS........................................65 Purpose of the Study ...................................65 Data Collection ........................................66

iv Research Tools .........................................67 Data Analysis ..........................................69 Findings ...............................................69 Demographic Statistics.............................. 70 MLQ: Overall Results................................ 72 JDI and JIG Scale Results........................... 76 Data to Evaluate Research Questions and Hypotheses..................................... 76 Conclusion .............................................83 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS......84 Interpretation of Findings .............................86 Implications for Social Change .........................89 Recommendations for Action .............................90 Recommendations for Further Study ......................91 Conclusion .............................................92 REFERENCES................................................93 APPENDIX A: PERMISSION TO USE THE AJDI AND AJIG..........104 APPENDIX B: PERMISSION TO USE MLQ........................106 APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM........................109 CURRICULUM VITAE.........................................111

v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Research Question and Instrument Scale Matrix....57 Table 2. Correlation Between the JDI Scores and MLQ Scores...............................................77

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Distribution of sample by industry type.........71 Figure 2. Distribution according to number of years in current industry.....................................72 Figure 3. MLQ overall results.............................74 Figure 4. Leadership style results........................75 Figure 5. Scatter plot between job satisfaction and the transformational leadership style................78 Figure 6. Scatter plot between job satisfaction and the transactional leadership style...................80 Figure 7. Scatter plot between job satisfaction and the laissez-faire leadership style...................82

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Since the Industrial Revolution, organizations have been challenged to gain strategic advantages and increase productivity in order to stay competitive in their industry and to stay operational. Taylor (1911), who was among the first to study leadership style, productivity, and job satisfaction, posited that employees must be motivated to increase productivity. In his scientific management theory, Taylor argued that if employees were paid more wages and required to do more work, their productivity would increase. In addition, Taylor argued that managers should manage based on scientific management principles and work hand in hand with employees. However, Mayo (1933) thought that physiological stimulation instead of financial compensation was the key to improved job satisfaction and increased productivity. Other researchers, such as Maslow (1943) and Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), shared Mayo’s view. Chapter 2 of this study will delve more deeply into the theories developed by Taylor, Mayo, Maslow, and Herzberg and will explore literature related to their theories.

2 Job satisfaction has been linked to productivity, employee retention, quality of work, and strategic advantage for organizations (Riketta, 2008). Conversely, job dissatisfaction has been shown to be detrimental to companies. If companies do not improve job satisfaction within their organization, they run the risk of reduced productivity, decreased revenue, and failure (Haakonsson, Burton, Obel, & Laurdsen, 2008; Rossiter, 2009). Many variables, including leadership style, can lead to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Leadership style will be explored in more detail in chapter 2 of this study. In addition, chapter 2 will describe the research that has correlated leadership style and job satisfaction. Much of the current research regarding leadership style and job satisfaction has been focused on health care organizations and academic environments (Connell et al., 2003; Kleinman, 2004a). The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction in a variety of industries. This knowledge may aid companies in developing management training strategies to motivate employees and increase employee job

3 satisfaction, which may, in turn, lead to increases in productivity, employee retention, quality, and revenue. Problem Statement Job satisfaction has been linked to productivity, employee retention, quality, and strategic advantage (Riketta, 2008). Haskett (as cited in Emery & Baker, 2007) argued that employee satisfaction begets high employee motivation, which yields a higher level of service quality. This service quality, in turn, leads to greater employee motivation, and thus results in increased sales volume. At the same time, the problem of job dissatisfaction can be detrimental to companies. Lussier and Achua (as cited in Mardanov, Heischmidt, & Henson, 2008) reported that in the United States, 77% of employees are unhappy with their current jobs. If companies do not improve job satisfaction, they run the risk of reduced productivity, decreased revenue, and failure (Haakonsson et al., 2008; Rossiter, 2009). Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) argued that organizations cannot succeed without the efforts and commitment of their personnel, and job satisfaction is critical to retaining and attracting a well-qualified

4 staff. Many variables can lead to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. One variable that has been linked to job satisfaction is leadership style. Mardanov et al. (2008) noted that turnover experts, both academic and practitioner, have asserted that supervision plays a meaningful role in employee turnover decisions and quality of life. Most of the research related to job satisfaction and leadership style have been conducted in health care organizations and academic environments and may not be generalizable to other industries. This study adds to the existing literature and addresses the problem of job dissatisfaction in a variety of environments. It investigates the correlation between leadership style, which includes transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership and was measured in this study by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and job satisfaction, which was measured by the Job Description Index (JDI) and the Job in General Scale (JIG).

5 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative study was to use correlation research methods to test the motivation hygiene theory that relates satisfiers and dissatisfiers to job satisfaction. This study tested the theory that the dissatisfier of supervision, which is illustrated by the transactional and laissez-faire leadership style, has a significant and negative relationship to job satisfaction, as stated by Herzberg et al.’s (1959) motivation hygiene theory. In addition, this study tested the theory that satisfiers such as achievement, recognition, and work responsibility, which are indicative of the transformational leadership style, have a significant and positive relationship to job satisfaction. Leadership style is defined in this study as transformational leadership, transactional leadership, or laissez-faire leadership. These three leadership styles were measured utilizing the MLQ instrument. The JDI and JIG were used to measure job satisfaction in the second part of this study. The relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction was analyzed using correlation statistical techniques.

6 Nature of the Study Correlation research methods were used in this quantitative study. According to Simon (2006), in correlation research, a researcher collects data to determine whether and to what degree a relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables. The independent variable for the study was leadership style, and the dependent variable was job satisfaction. According to Davis (as cited in Simon, 2006), the designs for correlation research are founded on the assumption that reality is best described as a network of interacting and mutually causal relationships. Chapter 3 of this study will contain a more detailed exploration regarding the nature of the study. Research Questions and Hypotheses The following research questions and hypotheses guided this study: Research Question 1: What is the relationship between the transformational leadership style, as measured by the MLQ, and employee job satisfaction, as measured by the JDI and the JIG scale?

7 Hypothesis 0(1): No significant or positive relationship exists between the transformational leadership style and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1: A significant and positive relationship does exist between the transformational leadership style and job satisfaction. Research Question 2: What is the relationship between the transactional leadership style, as measured by the MLQ, and employee job satisfaction, as measured by the JDI and the JIG scale? Hypothesis 0(2): No significant or negative relationship exists between the transactional leadership style and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: A significant and negative relationship does exist between the transactional leadership style and job satisfaction. Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the laissez-faire leadership style, as measured by the MLQ, and employee job satisfaction, as measured by the JDI and the JIG scale?

8 Hypothesis 0(3): No significant or negative relationship exists between the laissez-faire leadership style and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: A significant and negative relationship does exist between the laissez-faire leadership style and job satisfaction. Theoretical Base of the Study The theoretical bases that were used for studying leadership style and job satisfaction were Herzberg’s motivation hygiene theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) and Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs. Herzberg’s motivation hygiene theory is concerned with the factors that influence job satisfaction and motivation. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is concerned with employee job satisfaction and motivation. Both theories have been used extensively to study job satisfaction and its relationship to other variables such as intent to quit, job stress, performance, and leadership style (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005; DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005; LaBelle, 2005; Skemp-Arlt & Toupence, 2007; Smerek & Peterson, 2007). Herzberg et al. (1959) described the factors that influence job satisfaction as hygiene factors and

9 motivational factors. In the motivation hygiene theory, hygiene factors are called dissatisfiers (Herzberg et al., 1959). Herzberg et al. posited that dissatisfiers do not contribute to job satisfaction; rather, their absence contributes to job dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors include items such as company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, and personal life. This study tested the theory that the dissatisfier of supervision, which was illustrated by the transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles, has a significant and negative relationship to job satisfaction, as stated by Herzberg’s motivation hygiene theory. Motivators are known as satisfiers in the motivation hygiene theory and include items such as achievement, recognition, work responsibility, advancement, and growth (Herzberg et al., 1959). Therefore, this study tested the theory that satisfiers such as achievement, recognition, and work responsibility, which are indicative of the transformational leadership style, have a significant and positive relationship to job satisfaction. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs heavily influenced Herzberg’s motivation hygiene theory (Herzberg et al.,

10 1959). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory dealt with what motivates and satisfies employees. Maslow described the hierarchy of needs in terms of five levels: physiological needs, safety needs, love and belongingness needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs (Skemp-Arlt & Toupence, 2007). Physiological needs relate to basic human needs such as an employee’s physical work area. Safety is concerned with security; in the workplace, safety might be provided in the form of secure work areas and lighted parking lots. Belonging is concerned with being a part of a group. Esteem is concerned with items such as recognition and rewards. Self-actualization is closely linked to Herzberg’s motivators and is concerned with opportunities for professional growth, training, and development (Skemp-Arlt & Toupence, 2007). Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization level are closely related to the transformational leadership style that was used in this study. The other levels of physiological needs and safety closely related to behaviors that are indicative of transactional leaders. Further, this study tested Maslow’s levels, which were illustrated by the different leadership styles that may be connected to Herzberg’s motivation hygiene theory and have

11 a significant and positive or negative relationship to job satisfaction. Operational Definitions of Technical Terms Dissatisfiers: Also known as hygiene factors, dissatisfiers do not contribute to job satisfaction when they are present, but their absence can cause job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Hierarchy of needs: Employee motivational theory developed by Maslow (1943). Hygiene factors: Factors that do not directly contribute to job satisfaction but whose absence can cause job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Job Descriptive Index (JDI): Survey instrument used to measure job satisfaction, published by Bowling Green State University (Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, & Frings-Dresen, 2003). Job in General Scale (JIG): A component of the JDI used to measure job satisfaction (Saane et al., 2003). Laissez-faire leadership: Leadership style characterized by avoidance of responsibility and action (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

12 Motivational factors: Factors that reward the needs of individuals to reach their aspirations. Motivational factors contribute directly to job satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ): Survey instrument used to measure leadership styles, published by Mind Garden (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Satisfiers: Also known as motivators. Satisfiers reward the needs of individuals to reach their aspirations, and they contribute directly to job satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Transactional leadership: Task-oriented leadership style characterized by leaders who define agreements to achieve specific work objectives, discover individuals’ capabilities, and specify the compensation and rewards that can be expected upon successful completion of tasks (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transformational leadership: Leadership style characterized by leaders who are inspirational, intellectually stimulating, challenging, visionary, development-oriented, and determined to maximize performance (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

13

Assumptions 1. It was assumed that all respondents provided honest responses. 2. It was assumed that all respondents were knowledgeable regarding their supervisor’s management style and were able to answer questions related to it. 3. It was assumed that all respondents understood their work environment in terms of job satisfaction and were able to answer questions related to their job and job satisfaction levels. 4. It was assumed that respondents were employed. 5. It was assumed that the sample was representative of different industries, and that the findings might not be generalizable to other industries. 6. The questionnaire was delivered by electronic means. It was assumed that all respondents had access to a computer and the Internet. 7. The MLQ has been tested and used by several researchers to measure leadership style (Avolio & Bass, 2004). It was assumed that the MLQ effectively measured leadership style in this study.

14 8. Several researchers have used the JDI and JIG to measure leadership style effectively (Saane et al., 2003). It was assumed that the JDI and JIG effectively measured job satisfaction. 9. Three different leadership styles were measured in this study. It was assumed that the sample contained a representation of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Limitations The population of this study was composed of students from Walden’s participant pool. Due to the nature of the pool, the results may not be generalizable to different industries outside of academic environments. The sample size was 51 participants. Because this is a small sample size, the findings may not be generalizable to other environments. The research design for this study was correlational, as the goal was to determine the strength of the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. Correlation research identifies the strength of a relationship, but it does not determine the relationship’s underlying cause (Simon, 2006). Additional research will be required to determine causation.

15 Qualitative research could have been used to determine the underlying causes of the findings. However, the aim of this study was to determine the significance and strength of the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. Scope and Delimitations This study was confined to the survey of 51 participants in the Walden participant pool. Other factors that may influence job satisfaction are pay, environment, employees, and the company (Herzberg et al. 1959; Maslow, 1943). However, the variables used in this study were limited to leadership style and job satisfaction. Qualitative research designs (e.g., a case study) could have been used to study the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. However, quantitative research methods were used in this study. The method chosen was correlation research, which was also used by the majority of researchers in the literature review presented in chapter 2. Significance of the Study A study of the relationship between leadership style (defined as transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and laissez-faire leadership) and job

16 satisfaction is important for several reasons. First, understanding the relationships between leadership style and job satisfaction can help reveal the underlying causes of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction and help organizations develop strategies to improve job satisfaction. Second, by understanding the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction, the quality of life for employees can be improved, and companies may improve employee retention (Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007; Hunter, Auckland, & Tan, 2008; McNatt & Judge, 2008). Third, current research concerning job satisfaction has been largely focused on academic and health care settings; the findings may have been overgeneralized to other settings (Garland, McCarty, & Zhao, 2009; Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2008; Tella, Ayeni, & Popoola, 2007). This study adds to the literature concerning job satisfaction in a variety of settings. Social Change Job dissatisfaction has been linked to reductions in employee retention, quality, and productivity in organizations (Crossley et al., 2007; Hunter et al., 2008; McNatt & Judge, 2008). From the results of this study,

17 which examines the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction, companies can develop strategies to decrease job dissatisfaction and increase job satisfaction. These tactics may result in improved employee retention, productivity, and quality of life. Summary An introduction to the significance of leadership style and job satisfaction was provided in chapter 1. Chapter 2 will contain a comprehensive literature review related to the theoretical base and variables of the study. Chapter 3 will contain detailed information regarding the research steps associated with this study. Chapter 4 will contain the findings of the study. Chapter 5 will contain the summary of the study, conclusion, and recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter will present the theoretical literature on leadership style and job satisfaction that served as the foundation for the study. The chapter begins with an historical review of management research from leading theorists in the field of motivation and management. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s motivation hygiene theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) will be examined from their earliest form in the 1940s through the present. The next section will introduce and examine the characteristics of leadership styles and their impact on organizations, as well as introduce and explore the characteristics of job satisfaction and their impact on organizations. Finally, current research that correlates leadership style and job satisfaction in various environments will be examined. Online research databases EBSCO, Proquest, and Google Scholar were utilized for the literature review. Search terms used were: leadership style, job satisfaction, Mayo, Herzberg, Maslow, leadership style and job satisfaction, motivation hygiene, hawthorne effect, heiararchy of

19 needs,scientific management, motivational theory, and intent to quit. The search was limited to peer-reviewed journals and professional journal articles that have been published since 2003. Original works were purchased or downloaded from the Internet. Historical Review Numerous researchers studied management theory during the 20th century. However, four theorists led the field: Taylor (1911), Mayo (1933), Maslow (1943), and Herzberg (Herzberg et al., 1959). Their work has contributed more to the body of knowledge on motivational theory than the work of any other researchers. In 1911, Taylor wrote a book entitled The Principles of Scientific Management, in which he sought to realize three aims. His first purpose was to point out the great financial losses that the whole country was suffering due to inefficiency. His second objective was to illustrate that this inefficiency could be solved through systematic management. His third purpose was to illustrate that determining the best management technique is a true science that depends upon laws, rules, and principles.

20 Taylor was a pioneer in the field of motivational research. Based on the poor working conditions at the time of his research, he believed that workers were motivated to do as little as possible to get the job done. To illustrate the use of scientific management, Taylor (1911) conducted a case study on workers in the iron industry. The study found that if the wages of an iron worker were increased, the productivity of the worker would also increase. This increase in productivity was preceded by negotiation between management and the worker regarding whether the worker could do the job that deserved the increase in pay. Taylor’s scientific management theory stated that management should develop laws to replace the “rule of thumb” and train subordinates on the most efficient way to complete work assignments, rather than leave the workers to complete the work on their own without proper training. In addition, Taylor argued that management should work hand in hand with the workers by guiding and helping them and developing scientific laws. Scientific management was one of the first motivational theories whose advocates promoted higher wages for workers to improve productivity and increase job satisfaction.

21 A later researcher, Mayo (1933), disagreed with scientific management and stressed that one can increase productivity by adjusting factors other than financial compensation. Mayo conducted experiments in the Western Electrical Company. During what was known as the Hawthorne experiment, female workers were removed from their work environments and placed in test rooms, where their performance showed continued improvement despite the conditions of the room. In addition, the overall attitude of the female workers showed a simultaneous improvement. These experiments provided proof that employee morale and job satisfaction had a direct correlation with performance. The Hawthorne experiment was then validated by the mica room experiment which involved female workers that split mica plates in 1928. These experiments marked a shift in thinking from Taylor’s (1911) scientific management theory, which argued that employee performance was correlated with financial compensation and an autocratic management style. Mayo’s findings, which were the opposite of Taylor’s, showed that employee performance is linked to high morale and an environment where the workers have a positive attitude about their work. The Hawthorne effect formed the

22 foundation for much of the later research on employee motivation and job satisfaction. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Maslow (1943), a pioneering psychologist who laid the foundation for future researchers (Goud, 2008), continued the work of Mayo by publishing a theory of human motivation called the hierarchy of needs. He played a key role in the humanistic psychology movement and is arguably the most famous of management theorists (O’Connor & Yballe, 2007; Whittington & Evans, 2005). Maslow posited that his theory was in the functionalist tradition of James and Dewey and was fused with the holism of Wertheimer, Goldstein, and Gestalt psychology and with the dynamicism of Freud and Adler. The hierarchy of needs has five levels. The first level, physiological needs (Rossiter, 2009), deals with the requirements of the body and relates to physical necessities of life such as food, water, shelter, and clothing (Rossiter, 2009; Wiest, 2006). When the physiological level is satisfied, new needs emerge (Maslow, 1949). These new needs propel the individual to the second level of the hierarchy of needs, which is safety. This

23 level is concerned with keeping out of danger and being safe (Rossiter, 2009). Maslow (1949) argued that at this level, individuals prefer a safe, orderly, predictable, organized world that they can count on, and in which unexpected and dangerous things do not happen. If both the physiological and safety needs are met, the individual progresses to the next level, which is love and belongingness (Maslow, 1949). This level includes the concept of romantic love but is much broader (Rossiter, 2009). In addition, this level encompasses the need for affiliation and being accepted (Rossiter, 2009). The fourth level of the hierarchy of needs is esteem (Zalenski & Raspa, 2006). Maslow (1949) argued that all people in society have the need for a stable, firmly based, high evaluation of themselves and for the esteem of others. This level is concerned with achievement and gaining the approval and recognition of others (Rossiter, 2009). The fifth and final level of the hierarchy of needs is self-actualization (Skemp-Arlt & Toupence, 2007). Maslow (1949) argued that even if the first four levels are met, individuals may develop restlessness unless they are doing what they are meant to do. This level is concerned with

24 achieving one’s full potential (Rossiter, 2009). Maslow (1949) argued that in this level, what individuals can be, they must be. For instance, musicians must make music, artists must paint, and poets must write if they are to be ultimately happy. Maslow (1949) argued that the hierarchy of needs is not a rigid theory. For example, he stated that some people may place more importance on self-esteem than on love. He further stated that a reversal of the hierarchy of needs can occur due to a need being satisfied for an extended period of time and thus becoming undervalued. He illustrated this point by stating that people who have never experienced chronic hunger are apt to underestimate its effects and look upon food as unimportant. Koltko-Rivera (2006) posited that textbooks over the past 30 years have depicted an inaccurate version of the hierarchy of needs theory and do not reflect Maslow’s later statements about it. Koltko-Rivera argued that the highest level of the hierarchy of needs is self-transcendence. He based his arguments on works published by Maslow later in his career. However, no research in support of his findings has been conducted. O’Connor and Yballe (2007) argued that

25 some researchers have criticized the hierarchy of needs because it has not been supported by any research. They further argued that research has failed to find evidence that individuals rigidly progress through the hierarchy (O’Connor & Yballe, 2007). However, Maslow (1949) specifically stated that the theory is not designed to be rigid. Another criticism of the hierarchy is that it assumes that the needs of individuals are static, when they should be dynamic (Whittington & Evans, 2005). These criticisms have not stopped researchers from implementing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in their environments. Zalenski and Raspa (2006) applied Maslow’s theory to palliative and hospice care. In 2003, Zalenski and Raspa conducted a case study on a patient named Frank who was diagnosed with abdominal mesothelioma and given 2 months to live. At that time, Maslow’s theory was used primarily in business and social sciences and was sparsely employed in hospice care (Zalenski & Raspa, 2006). These researchers found that by applying Maslow’s hierarchy, Frank’s condition was stabilized, and he was able to actualize his important end-of-life dreams. In addition, they found that Maslow’s framework provided a comprehensive

Full document contains 124 pages
Abstract: Job satisfaction is the key contributor to an organization's quality, revenue, and productivity. Job dissatisfaction can lead to employee retention issues, reduced productivity, and ultimately, failure of the company. A company's leadership style can be a cause of job dissatisfaction. Therefore, the purpose of this quantitative correlation study was to determine the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. The research questions for the study examined this relationship by utilizing motivation hygiene theory as a foundation. The study used the Job Descriptive Index and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to gather data from 51 respondents from the Walden participant pool. The Pearson correlation coefficient determined that job satisfaction increased with transformational leadership styles and decreased with laissez-faire leadership styles. This study contributes to positive social change by identifying the leadership styles that contribute to job satisfaction, thereby enabling organizations to develop strategies to heighten job satisfaction, which may increase employee retention, quality, and revenue.