International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol., 4 (3), 152-156, 2015
Available online at http://www.isicenter.org
ISSN 2147-3749 ©2015
The Relationship between Transactional Leadership
and Job Satisfaction
Mehdi Tavakkol 1, 2, Hamid Janani 1, 2*
1
Department of Physical Education, East Azarbaijan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tabriz, Iran
2
Department of Physical Education, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
*
Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The current research is aimed at surveying the relationship between transactional
leadership and job satisfaction of employees of offices of youth and sports in North
Khorasan Province. The current research method was correlative. The population
included all employees of office of youth and sports in counties of North Khorasan
Province and they all participated in this research. Research tools were multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ) by Bass and Avolio (2000), and job descriptive index
(JDI) by Wysocki and Kromm (1994). Pearson correlation coefficient was used for
data analysis. Results showed that managers’ transactional leadership had a positive
and significant correlation with employees’ satisfaction from type of work, supervisor,
and promotion and ultimately employees’ job satisfaction total score. But there was
no correlation between managers’ transactional leadership and employees’
satisfaction from coworker and payment. Generally it is suggested to general
directorate of Youth and Sport of North Khorasan to emphasize more on the
psychological and managerial aspects of transactional leadership in training sessions
for more awareness of the managers.
Keywords: Transactional leadership, Job satisfaction, Efficiency.
Introduction
It is a common belief that in business, commerce, state affairs, many groups and organizations shaping our lives or
which we work in, good leadership is vital. Leadership includes ability to influence on a group and encouraging them
toward the specific goals (Robbins, 2011). Leadership is a subject matter attracting researchers’ and people’s attention
since a long time ago. Maybe the reason for this wide appeal is that leadership is a very mysterious process existing in
everyone’s life. Most scholars of behavioral sciences have tried to understand that with what features, abilities,
behaviors, power resources or by relying on what aspects of situation, it is possible to determine the leader’s potential
in affecting the followers and reaching the goals (Yukle, 1994).
Leadership style includes continuous behavior patterns used by individuals when working and they are understood
by others (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). One of the subjects that has recently attracted the attention of most researchers
is that what type of leadership could have a better effect on employees’ performance; is it better that leaders behave in a
transactional way toward their followers and use reward and punishment to guide them or is it better to respond to high
levels of demands by followers to create motivation. This has resulted in formation of two types of leadership named
transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Transactional leaders influence on their followers by
rewarding or punishing for the work that has been done. Burns (1978) put transformational and transactional leadership
on two ends of leadership continuum; whereas Bass (1985) declared that leaders can use both transformational and
transactional behavior which is in contrast with Burns’ perspective which thinks that transformational and transactional
concepts could not be put together; whereas Bass thinks that these two concepts complete each other. Hater and
Blanchard (1988) stated that transformational leaders affect their followers through a symbolic mentality and emphasis
on more efforts; whereas transactional leaders act through structure, considerations and encouraging the followers’
expectations related to the determined goals. But the important thing that should be noted here is that employees will
152
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(3), 152-156, 2015
have an incredible performance when they feel that work belong to them and when they have a positive feeling about
their job, when they have psychological attachment to the organization or when they attribute their identity to the
organization; in other words, when they have high job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the level of positive feelings and
attitudes the individuals have about their job. When individuals say that they have high job satisfaction this means that
they really like their job, they have a good feeling about it, and they value their job. Thus the aim of conducting the
current research was answering this question that; is there a correlation between managers’ transactional leadership and
employees’ job satisfaction commitment of offices of youth and sport in North Khorasan Province or not.
Methodology
The research method was descriptive-correlative. The population includes all employees of office of youth and
sport in counties of North Khorasan Province including 8 counties (Bojnord, Shirvan, Faruj, Esfarayen, Razojargalan,
Maneh and Samalqan, Garmeh and Jajrom) with 70 individuals and due to the small population all of them participated
in the research. The independent variable was transactional leadership and the dependent variable was job satisfaction.
At the research implementation stage, after providing introductory explanations about the measuring tools and aim of
conducting the research, examinees were fully informed about the method of answering the tests. In terms of ethical
considerations, after receiving examinees’ testimonials and providing necessary information, they were assured that the
received information would only be used in this research and that information would be protected from all forms of
abuse. Following questionnaires were used for measuring research variables.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ): 36-question MLQ was used for gathering required information for
determining the leadership style; this questionnaire is designed by Bass and Avolio in 2000, based on a 5-item Likert
scale (0-4) Questions of 1 to 20 measures the transformational leadership. This questionnaire assesses transformational
leadership in 5 dimensions: idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration.
Job Descriptive Index (JDI): JDI designed by Wysocki and Kromm in 1994 was used for determining job
satisfaction of employees. Manandhar and Wation (1996) confirmed the validity of MLQ and they reported that its
reliability coefficient is 0.94. In a research, by the use of Pearson correlation coefficient, Javdani (2011) reported that
response stability of the questionnaire was 0.79. In a research by Shahamat et al (2011) by the use of Cronbach’s alpha,
the reliability coefficient of job satisfaction questionnaire was reported to be 0.97. In this study with retest method, the
Cronbach’s alpha amount for job satisfaction and leadership style was 0.87 and 0.93, respectively. Also above
mentioned questionnaires were surveyed by 4 professors and experts of physical education management, and their face
validity and content validity was confirmed. Pearson correlation coefficient was used for analyzing data. All analyses
were conducted at significance level of p≤0.05.
Results
Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test results showed that data distribution is normal (p≥0.05). Table 1 shows statistical
descriptions of research variables. Based on this table, from the perspective of employees, the managers’ transactional
leadership has a mean of 1.9491 and standard deviation of 0.8213 and the highest score given is equal to 3. 5 and the
lowest score given is equal to 0. Mean score for each dimension of job satisfaction includes: satisfaction of work (2.59),
supervisor (superior) (2.35), coworkers (2.3629), promotional opportunities (2.2429), payment (salary) (1.6). In
general, mean score of job satisfaction of employees of offices of youth and sport in North Khorasan Province is equal
to 2.2291.
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of research variables.
Transactional Leadership
Work
Supervisor
Coworker
Promotion
Payment
Job satisfaction
Mean
1.9491
2.59
2.35
2.3629
2.2429
1.6
2.2291
SD
0.8213
0.8185
0.775
0.7480
1.0282
0.9244
0.8588
Maximum
3.5
4
4
4
4
4
3.94
Minimum
0
0.3
0.5
0.8
0
0
0.485
Based on table 2, the Pearson correlation coefficient between transactional leadership and satisfaction of type of work is
equal to 0.332 and significant (p≤0.05). The correlation coefficient is positive thus there is a direct correlation between
these two variables, which means that by increasing transactional leadership the score of satisfaction of work also
153
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(3), 152-156, 2015
increases and vice versa. Also Pearson correlation coefficient between transactional leadership and supervisor is equal
to 0.516 and it is statistically significant (p≤0.05). Since the correlation coefficient is positive then there is a direct
correlation between these two variables, which means that by increasing transactional leadership, the score of
satisfaction of supervisor also increases and vice versa. The correlation between transactional leadership and coworker
is equal to 0.208 and insignificant (p≥0.05). Pearson correlation coefficient between transactional leadership and
promotion is equal to 0.391 and statistically significant (p≤0.05). Since correlation coefficient is positive thus there is a
direct correlation between these two variables which means that by increasing transactional leadership the score of
satisfaction of promotion also increases and vice versa. But the correlation between transactional leadership and
satisfaction of payment is not statistically significant (p≥0.05). Pearson correlation coefficient between transactional
leadership and job satisfaction is equal to 0.439 and it is at a significant level (p≥0.05). The correlation coefficient is
positive thus there is a direct correlation between these two variables; which means that by increasing transactional
leadership the job satisfaction also increases and vice versa.
Table 2. Pearson correlation test for transactional leadership and job satisfaction.
Variables
Transactional Leadership
Work
Transactional Leadership
Supervisor
Transactional Leadership
Coworker
Transactional Leadership
Promotion
Transformational Leadership
Payment
Transactional Leadership
Job Satisfaction
*
Significant at level p≤0.05
r
0.332
Sig.
*
0.005
0.516
*
0.208
0.084
0.391
*
0.178
0.139
0.439
*
0.0001
0.001
0.0001
Discussion and Conclusion
The aim of conducting the current research was surveying the correlation between transactional leadership and job
satisfaction of offices of youth and sport in North Khorasan Province. Results showed that the correlation between
managers’ transactional leadership and employees’ satisfaction of work, supervisor, promotion and the total score of
employees’ job satisfaction was positive and significant. The current research findings are consistent with researches of
Park (1997), Walumbwa et al (2005), Ehsani and Haj Hashemi (2005), Emery and Baker (2007), Khodarahimi and
Taheri (2006), Blankenship (2010), Ghorbanian, Hadadpour and Maleki (2010), Bushra, Othman and Navid (2011),
Ibraheem et al (2011), Atmojo (2012), and Omar and Hussein (2013). Hapak (1935) considers job satisfaction as a
multidimensional concept and thinks that factors such as workplace conditions, income, and social value of the job are
effective on job satisfaction. According to Hapak, job satisfaction is related to mental, physical and social factors.
Individuals prefer jobs that have opportunities to use their abilities and skills and ultimately to freely show their
successful achievements (Robbins, 1998). If the head of the unit (from employees’ perspective) be intimate, understand
others, rewards good performance, respects others’ ideas and viewpoints and pay attention to them, the job satisfaction
will increase. Organizational promotion policies cause the employees to gain opportunities for progress, be more
responsible, and reach higher social degrees. People, who think that organizational promotion policies are based on
fairness and equity, will probably have more job satisfaction (Lawer, Ledfor, Chang, 1993). Transactional leadership is
leadership based on interaction between leader and follower in a way that individual desires of both parties will be met.
In other words, in this method all things are seen in terms of interest rates they have for individuals and the interaction
between leader and follower is based on business and trading one thing for another thing. Thus managers reward their
followers with what they expect; contingent rewards could be in different forms such as paying for doing a good job,
recommendations for increased payment, promotion and respect and highlighting their position. According to Baa
(1985) this process of reward and punishment for the employees is the feature of transactional managers; because
despite the transformational leaders, some managers are interested in the process of efficiency rather the basic ideas.
These types of payments and compensations are created for having a rational effect on employees; although, they
don’t have a role the same as each of the components of transformational leadership in encouraging others to achieve
higher levels of performance and progress (Bass, 1985). The current hypothesis survey results show that there is no
significant correlation between managers’ transactional leadership and employees’ satisfaction of coworker and
payment. Although there was no correlation between managers’ transactional leadership and employees’ satisfaction of
coworker and payment, several researches such as researches by Park (1997), Walumbwa et al (2005), Ehsani and Haj
154
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(3), 152-156, 2015
Hashemi 92005), Khodarahimi and Taheri (2006), Emery and Baker (2007), Blankenship (2010), Ghorbanian,
Hadadpour and Maleki (2010), Bushra, Othman and Navid (2011), Ibraheem et al (2011), Atmojo (2012) and Omar and
Hussein (2013) indicated a positive and significant correlation between managers’ transactional leadership and
satisfaction of coworker and payment. Salary and bonuses give this opportunity to individuals to but the products they
need. Salary plays an important role in job satisfaction and it is considered as an important factor for individuals;
because it is used as a tool to meet many essential and unessential needs. Individuals like fair payment systems and
promotion policies that are transparent and according to their expectations. Based on the type of job, and individual’s
skill level (and the income paid in that society) if the income and bonuses are fair then the job satisfaction will be
achieved (Mahdavi and Rouhi Azizi, 2000). Group size and quality of interpersonal communications in group have an
important role in employees’ satisfaction. Working group as a society is considered as an emotional protective system
for employees. If individuals have similar social characteristics such as similar beliefs and attitudes, they create an
atmosphere by which the job satisfaction will also be provided. In such cases the transactional leadership tries to give
salaries and bonuses according to the efficiency and performance and management increases employees’ job
satisfaction based on active exception. Transactional leaders trade rewards instead of good performance and determine
the rate of achieving the goals. Thus transactional leaders guide or encourage their followers by the use of explaining
the role and work requirements in order to achieve goals (Robbins, 1996). Another important point is that transactional
leadership is completely based on mutual relationship between leader and follower (Luthans, 1995) and also
transactional leaders use management by exception (actively) which means that they search for standard deviations,
rules and regulations and control them and do modifications based on them (Hersey et al., 1996). Based on the current
research results that showed that transactional leadership is one of the factors related to employees’ job satisfaction,
thus it is recommended to general directorate of Youth and Sport of North Khorasan to emphasize more on the
psychological and managerial aspects of transactional leadership in training sessions for more awareness of the
managers.
References
Atmojo M, 2012. The influence of transformational leadership on job satisfaction , organizational commitment, and
employee performance. International research journal of business studies. 5(2): 113-128.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ, 1996. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire for teams. Redwood city, CA: Mind garden.
Bass B, 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. NY: Free Press New York.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ, 2000. MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
Blackhurst AE, Brandt JE, Kalinowski J, 1998. Effect of career development on the organizational commitment and life
satisfaction of women student affairs administrators. NASPA Journal. 36: 19-34.
Blankenship S, 2010. The consequences of transformational leadership and /or transactional leadership in relationship
to job satisfaction and organizational commitment for active duty women serving in the air force medical
service”, United states, Florida: Nova southeastern university.
Burns JM, 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Ehsani M, Haj Hashemi M, 2005. Correlation between leadership style and job satisfaction of female physical
education teachers. Research in sport sciences. 8: 119-129.
Emery CR, Baker KJ, 2007. The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational
commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of organizational culture,
communications and conflict. 1: 11.
Ghorbanian A, Hadadpour A, Maleki MR, 2010. Correlation between managers’ leadership style (transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership style) and job satisfaction of emergency medical technicians in Isfahan.
Journal of rescue. 3,2.
Heresy P, Blanchard, K.H, Dewey EJ, 1996. Management of Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall,
Ibraheem S, Mohammad SH, Al Zeaud HA, Batayneh AME, 2011. The relationship between transformational
leadership and employees’ satisfaction at Jordanian private hospitals. Business and economic horizons. 2(4): 3546.
Javdani M, 2011. Surveying the correlation between transformational leadership and transactional leadership with
organizational commitment of teachers. Journal of education. 1(1): 143-158.
Khodarahimi S, Taheri E, 2006. Correlation between job satisfaction of faculty members and leadership style in Islamic
Azad University. Islamic Azad University.
Mahdavi M, Rouhi Azizi M, 2000. Factors affecting on employees’ job satisfaction. Taavon. 107: 51-56.
Omar WAW, Hussei, F, 2013. Transformational leadership style and job satisfaction relationship : a study of structural
equation modeling (SEM). International journal of academic research in business and social sciences. 2 , 3.
Othman Saqer H, 2009. The effects of the perceived leadership style on organizational commitment an empirical study
on UNRWA staff. Unpublished master’s thesis”, Islamic university GAZA.
Park HT, 1997. Transformational and transactional leadership styles of the nurse administrators and job satisfaction,
organizational commitment nursing service. Journal of Korean academy of nursing. 1(27): 228-241.
155
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(3), 152-156, 2015
Robbins SP, 1999. Principles of organizational behavior, Translated by Parsaeian, A., and Arabi, M. Tehran: Office of
cultural researches. Date of publication in original language.
Robbins SP, 2011. Principles of organizational behavior, Translated by Parsaeian, A., and Arabi, M. Tehran: Office of
cultural researches. Date of publication in original language.
Shahamat N, Rouzgar M, Shahamat F, 2011. Surveying job satisfaction of faculty members of Islamic Azad University
from two motivational and health aspects”, Science-research journal of new achievement in education
management, Islamic Azad University-Marvdasht Branch.
Walumbwa FO, Orwa B, Wang, P, Lawler JJ, 2005. Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job
satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenya and U.S. financial firms. Human resource development quarterly.
2(16): 235-256.
Yukle G, 1994. Leadership in organization. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
156