This is the HTML version of the

file https://www.cn.edu/libraries/tiny_mce/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Dissertations/DissertaionsFall
2017/Gwendolin_J._Schwartz.pdf. Google automatically generates HTML versions of documents as we
crawl the web.
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Page 1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER JOB SATISFACTION AND
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP STYLES
A dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the Education Department
Carson-Newman University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
By
Gwendolin J. Schwartz
May 2017

Page 2
ii
Copyright © by Gwendolin J. Schwartz (2017)
All rights reserved.

Page 3
iii
Dissertation Approval
Student Name/CNU ID/Date: Gwendolin J. Schwartz / CNU ID #0268569 / April 24, 2017
Dissertation Title: The Relationship Between Teacher Job Satisfaction and Principal Leadership Styles
This dissertation has been approved and accepted by the faculty of the Education Department,
Carson-Newman University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of
Education.
Dissertation Committee:
Signatures: (Print and Sign)
Electronic signature provided
Dissertation Chair: Dr. Mark Gonzales
Methodologist: Dr. P. Mark Taylor
Content Member: Dr. Julia Price
Approved by the Dissertation Committee Date: April 24th, 2017

Page 4
iv
I hereby grant permission to the Education Department, Carson-Newman University, to
reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes, with the understanding that in
no case will it be used for financial profit to any person or institution.
Gwendolin J. Schwartz
April 24, 2017
 Page 5
v
Abstract
Research supports the theory that teacher job satisfaction is dependent upon many different
variables. The study reviews several of the factors that are commonly associated with the job
satisfaction of educators and then explores the effects of the principals’ leadership styles on
teachers’ self-reported job satisfaction level. Two quantitative instruments were used to gather
data and qualitative narratives were used to add to the depth of understanding for the findings.
Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles of the principals were
determined using a questionnaire that gauged the perception the teacher had about their
principals’ leadership. Additionally, the level of job satisfaction (intrinsic, extrinsic, and overall)
was established using a separate questionnaire. The findings highlight that there are significant
relationships between the leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and
the teachers’ overall job satisfaction. Principals’ transformational leadership, in relation to the
other two types of leadership styles, had a positive effect on teachers’ intrinsic, extrinsic, and
overall job satisfaction. Implications of the study are discussed in relation to principals and
teachers and recommendations are made for the direction of future research on this topic.

Page 6
vi
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my children, Annabelle and Alexander Schwartz. You have
both given up so much “time” that could be spent with momma. You will no longer hear, “I
can’t do that right now, I have homework to do.” Momma will now be available to play with
you, cuddle with you during family movie nights, enjoy the family game times, and attend all of
your various activities. Thank you for your sacrifice and understanding. I want you both to
know that you can do anything you set your mind to and you should always strive to be the best
you that you can be in every endeavor in life. Always remember that all great accomplishments
start with the decision to just try.

Page 7
vii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to those who have been
supportive through my educational journey. I would like to first thank my dissertation
committee members, without which I would have been lost during this process. Thank you to
Dr. Mark Gonzales for always being available and supportive as my committee chair. Your
wisdom has been very influential in shaping this research project and you have been a
tremendous help to me. Dr. P. Mark Taylor has been a great help to me as the methodology
expert. I appreciate your guidance and assistance during the statistics course which ensured I
stayed on the right path as I sorted through all of the data for this project. Thank you for
providing the information on where to look for answers, but for not giving me the answers so
that I could learn and discover for myself. I would also like to thank Dr. Julia Price for her
willingness to join my committee and her lasting faith in my ability to do well throughout this
process. You encouraged me at the beginning of my educational journey at Carson Newman and
it is only fitting that you should be with me at its completion. In humble appreciation I extend a
genuine thank you to each of you for serving on my committee, for your words of reassurance,
and for your continued guidance and assistance through this process.
I am thankful for the faculty at Carson-Newman University who have instructed me and
guided me through the years as I worked first towards earning my Ed.S, and then as I persevered
through the doctorate program. My thanks and appreciation especially again to Dr. Julia Price
and also to Dr. Earnie Walker for encouraging me throughout the entire time it took me to reach
this academic milestone. I am blessed to have worked with each of you. You both are respected
mentors.

Page 8
viii
My appreciation is extended to my professional colleagues who have made this study
possible. My coworkers have provided me with a view into this research that would have been
impossible without them. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study and for
your candid responses. Also, thank you to the administrators who helped and allowed me to
gather the data.
I am forever grateful for the prayers and support given by my family and close friends
during this time. They have consistently helped me keep a perspective on what is important in
life. I am truly overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and encouragement I received during this
academic journey. My parents, Richard and Glenda Phillips, have taught me that I can do
anything that I set my mind to and to always strive to overcome any obstacle in my path. They
have expected nothing less than excellence from me and have pushed me beyond what I thought
was possible. I would like to thank my husband, Josh Schwartz, who has been a constant source
of encouragement, a brainstorming partner, and sounding board for me during this doctoral
process. He has never stood in the way of my dreams and has provided with a safe and loving
home as I experienced the many highs and lows through this chapter of my life. Thank you for
being my biggest fan and I am blessed to journey through life with you. I also want to thank my
children, Annabelle and Alexander Schwartz, for their patience and understanding during this
academic journey. I appreciate both of you for your willingness to delay gratification and to
know that good things come to those who wait on the Lord. God has blessed me with two loving
and intelligent children who are the light of my life and it is for them that I wanted to achieve
academic excellence and pursue something greater. This has been a long and difficult adventure;
however, my children have been a constant source of inspiration and reassurance. Thank you for
reminding me what is most important in life.

Page 9
ix
Table of Contents
Copyright Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Dissertation Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Permission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
CHAPTER 1: Purpose and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Theoretical Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 8
Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Teacher Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Types of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Transformational Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Transactional Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Laissez-Faire Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Analysis of Leadership Styles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Need for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Description of Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Research Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
CHAPTER 4: Results of the Data Anaylsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Page 10
x
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Summary of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Theoretical Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Discussion and Implications of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appendix A: Study Participation Informed Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Appendix C: Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Appendix D: Teacher Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Page 11
xi
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 4.1 School Participation Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 4.2 Relationship between Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Leadership Styles . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figures
Figure 4.1 Survey Participation Rate by School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 4.2 Demographic Teacher Gender Break Down by School Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Page 12
1
CHAPTER 1
Purpose and Organization
Introduction
Teaching is one of the greatest professions and one that is ever evolving. Over the past
20 years, the teaching profession has undergone many changes (Carver & Feiman-Nemser,
2008). School districts and specifically teachers are expected to provide a high quality education
to all students. With the increase in accountability required by the No Child Left Behind
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (NCLB), school districts are under increased pressure to ensure all
students demonstrate academic achievement. The constantly changing field of education is very
challenging. Teachers need support and guidance to assist them as they learn to be successful
educators in the classroom (Billingsley, Israel, & Smith, 2011). Teachers enter the classroom
with excitement and anticipation, but may experience failures within the first few years if not
given proper support (Delgado, 1999). Even after extensive time spent in a college preparatory
program for their chosen profession, teachers may feel underprepared for the reality of teaching
once they are actually in a classroom and may also experience a feeling of isolation causing them
to be reluctant to ask for assistance to avoid appearing inadequate (Ingersoll, 2002). These
combined reasons may lead to job dissatisfaction. With these possible feelings of inadequacy,
isolation, and failure it is not surprising that many teachers leave the field of teaching to pursue

Page 13
2
other career choices stating low job satisfaction as a reason for their departure (Ingersoll, 2002).
Teacher attrition is damaging school districts across America and has a negative effect on student
academic success (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2008). The U.S. Department of Education
issued a teacher survey in the 2004-2005 academic school year, which found that teacher
attrition rate had grown 50% in the 15 years prior to the study and in some cases, teacher
“dropout” rates were higher than those of students (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Highly qualified teachers are leaving the profession in droves claiming one reason is job
dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, the shortage of teachers may cause some school districts to lower
their standards for teacher quality (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,
1997) and thus, the achievement of students decreases (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2008).
Research has found that teachers who have higher levels of job satisfaction have higher
commitment to the profession and are less likely to leave the field of education to pursue other
career choices (Larkin, Brantley-Dias, & Lokey-Vaga, 2016). There are many variables that
may attribute to a teachers’ level of job satisfaction including workplace conditions, pay,
relationships with staff, student behavior, parent participation, and a supportive administration
(Abu-Taleb, 2013). Several researchers have investigated the relationship between teacher job
satisfaction and supportive administration leadership (Kirby, Paradise, & King, 1992; Koh,
Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Silins, 1992) and found that when teachers feel supported, they are less
likely to leave the teaching profession. While there is research to support teachers’ work ability
or success based on student achievement as related to job satisfaction, there is comparatively
little knowledge focused on how teachers perceived their principals’ leadership behavior as it
relates to job satisfaction (Evans & Johnson, 1990). In other words, there are many variables
that have been studied to determine which variables have an influence on overall teacher job

Page 14
3
satisfaction. However, with all of the available research on the topic of teacher job satisfaction,
there is a remarkable lack of research available about how certain variables affect job satisfaction
for teachers, namely how leadership styles of the principal affect reported job satisfaction. This
information would add another layer to the understanding of what causes a teacher to be satisfied
in his or her job and the willingness to stay in the field of education as a career choice.
Statement of the Problem
Considering all of the different research available on teacher job satisfaction, the problem
remains that a crucial factor has not yet been investigated, specifically the connection between
teacher job satisfaction and principal’s leadership styles. Some researchers investigated the
relationship between leadership styles and college faculty members’ job satisfaction (Leary,
Sullivan, & Ray, 1999); however, relatively little empirical research has been conducted on the
relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and leadership styles at the high school, middle
school, or elementary school level (Khanna, 2010). Even so, it is generally agreed that when
teachers are provided with a supportive work environment from administrators they have higher
job satisfaction (Klassen & Anderson, 2009).
Purpose of the Study
The intent of this study was to explore the relationship between teachers’ self-reported
level of job satisfaction and their perception of the leadership style of their principal. The goal of
the current study is to determine if different types of leadership have an influence on whether one
is satisfied with his or her job in the field of education at the high school, middle school, or
elementary level. This study contributes to the knowledge base of the impact of school
administration leadership styles as connected to overall teacher job satisfaction and is relevant to

Page 15
4
understanding what makes teachers feel satisfied enough to stay in their chosen career for the
long term and not pursue other career paths.
Theoretical Foundation
The theoretical framework for this study requires an understanding of the commonly
accepted leadership styles which are transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. There are
a number of studies from a variety of cultural contexts and settings that have investigated the
conceptual framework of the different leadership styles (Dinham & Scott, 2000) and have found
that leaders will mostly likely fall within one of these three types. Leadership style affects
followers’ job satisfaction (House, 1976) and the qualities of a leader often times are determined
by the culture and context of the organization in which one leads (Al-Omari, 2008). The
personal abilities of a leader usually determine a specific style for the leader, which may create a
positive picture of the leader among the subordinates (Amin, Shah, & Tatlah, 2013). The three
selected leadership styles used for this study are transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire.
Leaders who utilize the transformational leadership style motivate subordinates to
achieve higher levels of performance expectations, promote new approaches to solve problems,
and encourage change while ensuring the team maintains a shared vision (Bass, 1985; Bass &
Avolio, 2000). The key to transformational leadership is the use of motivation and
encouragement. Under this theory, subordinates are more likely to meet expectations at a
satisfactory level or higher if they feel inspired or encouraged to do so. Subordinates, then,
comply with leaders’ demands based on the intrinsic factor of personal motivation (Evans &
Johnson, 1990).
Transactional leadership is based on the idea of a give and take relationship. The leader
and subordinates decide on the procedure of attaining objectives by means of exchange of

Page 16
5
rewards and the use of coercion to acquire the subordinate’s compliance (Bass, 1985). The
transactional image of leadership refers to give-and-take relationships between leaders and their
followers where each enters the transaction because of the expectation to fulfill self-interests
(Bogler, 2001). This leadership theory relies heavily on the use of extrinsic factors, such as, the
receiving of some type of reward or the aversion of a negative consequence (Evans & Johnson,
1990).
In contrast to transformational or transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership is
characterized as non-leadership or the absence of leadership (Amin et al., 2013). In this type of
leadership style, there is very limited interaction between the leader and his or her followers
(Bass, 1990). These leaders fail to take care of the needs and developments of an organization
and the subordinates, thus, continue as they have always done with little to no change (Aydin,
Sarier, & Uysal, 2013). A laissez-faire leader renounces their liability, delays making decisions,
does not give feedback, and makes no effort to meet the needs of the followers (Northouse,
2010). A leader who uses laissez-faire leadership is less likely to give attention to the
subordinates or assist in fulfilling their needs (Avolio, 1999).
Research Questions
The goal of this study is to examine the effects of principal leadership style on job
satisfaction for teachers at the high school, middle school, and elementary school level. Here it
should be noted that this study was aimed to examine only the teachers’ perceptions of their
principals’ behavior and leadership styles rather than the principals’ actual behavior. Principals
did not self-report their leadership behavior, nor were actual observations made of their behavior.
Therefore, throughout the present study, when these concepts are discussed, the references are to
the teachers’ subjective views rather than to actual observed behavior of the principal. The focus
 Page 17
6
of the current research was to examine the relationship between perceived leadership styles of
the principals and the teachers self-reported perceived job satisfaction in a small rural
community in East Tennessee. Both quantitative and qualitative respondent data was examined
to identify themes between reported job satisfaction for teachers and administration’s leadership
style. Keeping in view the purpose of the study, the following research questions were used to
guide this study:
What is the relationship between teachers’ perceived leadership style of their
principal and the teachers’ self-perceived overall job satisfaction?
Is one leadership style over another (transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire) more likely to improve teacher job satisfaction?
The hypothesis for this study was that teachers will report higher job satisfaction when
they have a leader who is either transformational or transactional than when they have a leader
who utilizes laissez-faire leadership. Likewise, the null hypothesis was that there would be no
difference in reported job satisfaction and the different types of leadership styles.
Limitations
All research has certain inherent limitations, and this study is no different. A key
limitation in this study, of measuring perceived leadership skills of principals and the
subordinates’ job satisfaction, is the prior relationship between the leader and his or her
followers. For example, if a leader and a subordinate are friends outside of the work place or
prior to the principal accepting the leadership position, then the follower may have a higher
opinion of the leader. The relationship prior to the leader–subordinate relationship may have a
positive impact on the perception of the leader’s abilities (Klassen & Anderson, 2009). In a
small community, where most people have likely grown up together, this is sometimes the case.

Page 18
7
In the rural setting used for this study within one school district, some of the teachers were
friends with their principals prior to the principal accepting the leadership position. In fact, some
of the teachers grew up and attended school with people who are now in leadership positions
over them. This is a limitation to the study because the external variable of established
relationships may play a part in opinions given by the respondents. Although prior relationships
might be a limitation for this study, coincidently, teachers who were promoted into a principal
position within the county were moved to another school where they had not previously been
employed as a teacher. While it was still true that the teachers of the new school may have
known the principal from living in the same small community, teacher co-workers did not have
the additional limitation of having co-worker relationships changed to leader-subordinate
relationships.
This study also had the limitation of a relatively small sample size. This county has five
elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and two alternative schools. The
chosen participants for this study were all teachers, principals, and administrative staff working
for this school district. This was not a comprehensive look at all teachers and their principals’
leadership styles; rather, it was a view of only a small sample size in order to determine if further
research into this area is warranted.
Delimitations
Delimitations define the limits and boundaries of a study. The participants were chosen
with three characteristics in common. First, respondents had to be a certified teacher;
paraprofessionals or other support staff persons were not used for purposes of data collection
because the job evaluations of these people are different than that of teachers’ job evaluations.
Second, all respondents worked for the same rural small county in East Tennessee. Third, each

Page 19
8
of the teachers who participated in the study had been employed for a minimum of one full
academic year serving under the principal of their school.
Assumptions
One assumption of the study was that the participants of this research answered the
survey questions honestly and objectively, putting aside any feelings or opinions he or she might
have outside of the professional working relationships investigated. It is further assumed that the
respondents understood the questions asked in the survey instruments. Also, this study was
restricted to only teachers and administrators of one county in the state of Tennessee; therefore, it
is assumed the generalizability of the study is limited. The small sample size prevents broad
scale generalizability to all teacher–principal relationships across the nation. The hypothesis for
the study assumed that teacher satisfaction will be less influenced by the laissez-faire leadership
style, as this leadership approach is essentially a lack of any form of leadership at all.
Definition of Terms
Job satisfaction is perceived as the affective reactions of the individuals towards their
work; however, there is no common idea about how individuals form these emotional reactions
(Akkaya & Akyol, 2016). In other words, how one feels about his or her job in general may lead
to feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction; even so, there are many contributing factors to the
level of satisfaction. Job satisfaction is therefore defined as the pleasure the employees feel as a
result of evaluating their work and their work life (Anderson, et al., 2014). For purposes of this
study, job satisfaction refers to the teachers; perception of their level of fulfillment based on
comparing their expectations of the job with the actual outcomes.
Teacher job satisfaction  was determined by measuring the teachers’ self-reported
extrinsic and intrinsic levels of satisfaction. The Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction

Page 20
9
Scale was used to assess these teacher perceptions (Mohrman, Cooke, Mohrman, 1978). A copy
of this scale is found in appendix C.
Leadership  is the process that includes influencing the task objectives and strategies
needed to meet those objectives to a group or organization (Khanna, 2010). In other words,
school leadership is defined as influencing people within the school to implement strategies and
achieve objectives. The development and growth of a school system depends on the relationship
between a leader and his or her followers (Khanna, 2010). An appropriate leadership style is
more likely to enhance job satisfaction among the subordinates and has the potential to increase
the performance of the workers (Madlock, 2008). This argument reinforces the need for the
present study.
Transformational leadership is when the followers and their leaders inspire each other to
achieve higher levels of motivation in order to collaborate together through the process of change
for the whole organization (Burns, 1978; Sillins, 1994). A transformational leader is one who
takes care of his or her followers in such a way that their forces are combined to meet the needs
and potential of the school (Burns, 2003). A transformational leader works with the subordinates
to achieve goals by increasing intrinsic motivation by creating a support system for each
employee.
Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is where the leaders identify the primary
tasks for the followers to accomplish, establish the structure and criterion for which the goals are
to be completed, and then evaluate the followers on their ability to finish the planned work
(Aydin et al., 2013). The followers are given rewards or punishments in relation to their ability
to achieve the organizational goals (Kottkamp, Mulhern, & Hoy, 1987). Transactional

Page 21
10
leadership results in a routinized, non-creative but stable environment (Bogler, 2001) where the
employees work for extrinsic incentives.
Laissez-Faire leadership is an approach in which there is essentially no leadership
because there is limited interaction between the leader and the followers (Bass, 1990) and as
such, the leader rejects responsibility, delays decisions, does not provide effective feedback
(Aydin et al., 2013) causing the organization to become stagnant because there is not a sense of
growth and development. There is a negative relationship between worker motivation and job
performance when Laissez-Faire leadership style is used (Rowold & Scholtz, 2009).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 established the need for the study with an overview of the significance for the
reason to proceed with the research. The purpose of chapter 2, the literature review, was to
present an overview of the significant research and theories surrounding teacher job satisfaction
and principal leadership styles. The key issues and challenges were highlighted in the literature
review. Chapter 3 provided an overview of the methodology utilized in the study, including the
research design, the population and sample, the instruments and survey, and the data analyses
that were used. Chapter 4 provided an overview of the quantitative findings and a description of
the qualitative information gathered. Chapter 5 provided a summary and the conclusions of the
results as well as recommendations for future research.

Page 22
11
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Introduction
Teaching is one of the few vocations that have a lasting impact on society by having a
direct influence on future generations. It is one of the greatest professions and one that is ever
changing. Over the past 20 years, the teaching profession has undergone many modifications
(Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2008). The teaching profession faces challenges that continuously
reconfigure knowledge, rules, skills, attitudes, and ways of professional development (Massari,
2015). Education has changed and developed fundamentally due to social, cultural, and political
changes (Saeed et al., 2011). During the past decade, schools have undertaken essential changes
in areas such as students’ and teachers’ roles, curriculum development, learning strategies, and
the analysis of data to determine academic growth (Bogler, 2001). School districts and
specifically teachers are expected to provide an excellent education to all students. With the
increase in accountability required by the No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Act of 2008
(NCLB), school districts are under increased pressure to ensure all students demonstrate
academic achievement. Schools are under intense scrutiny by public and private stakeholders
who question the systems’ ability to fulfill its goals of teaching basic skills, instilling values,
preventing dropouts, and producing a productive workforce for society (Saeed et al., 2011). The

Page 23
12
constantly changing field of education is both very demanding and challenging for educators.
Teachers need support and guidance to assist them as they learn to be successful educators in the
classroom (Billingsley, Israel, & Smith, 2011).
Teachers must be adequately prepared to support students in the constantly changing and
challenging environment. Teachers enter the classroom with excitement and anticipation, but
may experience failures within the first five years if not given proper support (Delgado, 1999).
The first few years spent teaching in a classroom potentially set the tone for the teacher’s entire
career. A negative first-year experience may lead to the teacher exiting the teaching profession
altogether in search of another career path (Paris, 2013). Even after extensive time spent in a
college preparatory program for their chosen profession, teachers may feel underprepared for the
reality of teaching once they are actually in a classroom and may also experience a feeling of
isolation causing them to be reluctant to ask for assistance to avoid appearing inadequate
(Ingersoll, 2002). These combined reasons may lead to occupational stress in the teaching
environment (Abbey & Esposito, 2001) which might lead to job dissatisfaction. With the
feelings of inadequacy, isolation, and failure it is not surprising that many teachers leave the field
of teaching to pursue other career choices stating low job satisfaction as a reason for their
departure (Ingersoll, 2002). It is important to determine the influential factors that affect
teachers’ level of job satisfaction in an effort to encourage teachers to stay with the profession
because not doing so puts the education of current and future students at risk (Baran, Maskan, &
Baran, 2015). The factors leading to teachers’ dissatisfaction with their jobs may cause teachers
to not only feel unsatisfied, but also to give up on their chosen profession in order to find a new
career. Researchers suggest that schools must give more attention to increasing teacher job
satisfaction (Heller, Clay, & Perkins, 1993). Teachers unsatisfied with their positions may not

Page 24
13
perform to the best of their capabilities, stifling the continuous learning process for the students
in their school.
Teacher attrition is damaging school districts across America and has a negative effect on
student academic success (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2008). According to the U.S.
Department of Education, teacher attrition grew 50% in the 15 years between 1990 and 2005;
and furthermore, the report indicated that the attrition of teachers was expected to continue to
rise (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Baran et al. (2015) pointed out that almost 30% of
newly-appointed teachers give up teaching within their first five years. Many teachers reported
the decision to leave the teaching profession was partially due to lack of support and overall job
dissatisfaction (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2005). Highly qualified teachers are leaving
the profession in droves because they are unsatisfied with their jobs. Unfortunately, the shortage
of teachers may cause some school districts to lower their standards for teacher quality (National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1997) and thus, the achievement of students
decreases (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2008). Teacher job satisfaction is important to overall
school success because teacher dissatisfaction decreases student achievement and increases
disciplinary problems and teacher turnover rates (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). Improving
teacher job satisfaction may improve the attrition rates by encouraging qualified teachers to
remain in the education field instead of leaving to pursue other job possibilities. Determining
teachers’ level of job satisfaction and the factors influential on their job satisfaction is a very
important task for the sake of the education given to the students (Baran, Maskan, & Baran,
2015).
Utilizing the practice of assigning effective mentors or coaches for struggling teachers
can be a key component for teacher success and is often used to retain and support teachers

Page 25
14
(Kennedy & Cavanaugh, 2010). All teachers can benefit from a mentoring relationship with a
more experienced teacher (Wortmann et al., 2008), and this support system privilege should not
be reserved for only the struggling teachers. Teachers who have a mentor or coach report feeling
less isolation and are more willing to ask for help when needed (Ingersoll, 2002). Mentors can
help teachers achieve higher levels of job satisfaction. Although the use of mentors is beneficial,
the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2007) found that school
administrators play a more vital role in reducing the high number of teachers that leave the
profession. Positive supervisory support and relationships affect teachers’ choices regarding
whether to stay with or leave their jobs (Sungu, Ilgan, Parylo & Erdem, 2014). When teachers
and the principal have mutual respect for each other, teachers tend to trust the principal because
they believe that their principal is supportive of their needs (Korkmaz, 2007). Through the
hiring of well- prepared teachers, strong mentoring relationships, and the support of effective
administrative staff including principals and assistant principals, new teachers may be retained
and the education of students protected from the detrimental effects of teachers leaving the field
of education. Considering the high rate of early attrition, it follows that teachers often do not
allow themselves the necessary time to become experienced, knowledgeable, and confident long-
term educators before leaving the profession. Research has found that teachers who report
having higher levels of job satisfaction have higher commitment to the profession and are less
likely to leave the field of education to pursue other career choices (Larkin, Brantley-Dias, &
Lokey-Vaga, 2016). Principal leadership styles may have an impact on the successful
accomplishments of teachers (Evans & Johnson, 1990). Teachers need to feel a sense of
accomplishment, achievement, and success early in the first five years of teaching in order to
maintain a high level of job satisfaction throughout their career as an educator (Vierstraete,

Page 26
15
2005). There is increasing evidence regarding the detrimental effects associated with low job
satisfaction and high attrition for teachers, especially for the students whose quality of education
declines as highly qualified teachers leave the field of education (Abbey & Esposito, 2001).
Sergiovanni (1992) suggested that teacher satisfaction is highest when teachers both
participate and invest in their own performance as a teacher. Participation involves only minimal
commitment to the school’s goals and vision. These teachers seek only an extrinsic reward, such
as pay, for doing their job solely based on the teacher’s contract. However, when a teacher
invests in his or her own performance as a teacher, the reward for the job becomes intrinsic in
nature and can include recognition, achievement, and feelings of competence and empowerment.
These educators find the career of teaching exciting, challenging, interesting, and meaningful
(Sergiovanni, 1992). Schools can neither function adequately nor excel unless teachers invest
their efforts in both the participation of the school’s goals and vision as well as the personal
performance investment. It is important for teachers to find a level of job satisfaction they are
comfortable with in order to maintain teaching at the highest standards to promote the academic
growth of their students.
In an effort to understand teacher job satisfaction as related to principal leadership styles,
several key areas were explored for the purposes of the literature review for this study. Many
variables are important considerations for their effect on overall teacher job satisfaction.
Previous research has been quite extensive at looking at many of the variables. For purposes of
this study, the focus was to look at teacher job satisfaction and principal leadership styles. Thus,
key terms such as job satisfaction, teacher attrition, administrator leadership style,
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire were used as search criteria for portions of this
literature review.

Page 27
16
Teacher Job Satisfaction
The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, a survey sponsored by the MetLife
Foundation (2012), found that as of 2012, teacher job satisfaction had dropped from 59% in 2009
to 44% in 2012, a drop of 15 percentage points in just three years. This drop marked the lowest
teacher job satisfaction score since the survey was first conducted over 30 years ago in 1984.
The survey stated several key areas that indicated a significant decrease in teacher job
satisfaction that lead to teachers’ likelihood to leave the profession. According to the survey,
contributors to the reported lower job satisfaction among teachers were the increase in class
sizes, reduction of paraprofessional supportive staff in the schools, an increase of responsibilities
without corresponding monetary compensation, and inadequate or outdated materials provided
by the school system to teach more rigorous and demanding state standards. The results from the
survey further found that teachers with the lowest job satisfaction reported noticing an increase
in students and families needing health or social services, an increase in the number of students
coming to school hungry, an increase in students being bullied, and an increase in student
discipline problems at school. In other words, teachers were dissatisfied with their jobs not
because of the teaching job itself, but because of outside factors that affected the students’ ability
to learn in the classroom.
Other studies have researched different variables that might have an influence on teacher
job satisfaction and have found contradictory results. Several studies have looked at teacher
gender as the variable that determines teacher job satisfaction. Some reports have found that
female teachers were less satisfied with their jobs than male teachers (Bishay, 1996;
Mwamwenda, 1997), especially when teachers felt unsupported in their role by administrators
and colleagues (Kim & Yang, 2016). On the other hand, some studies reported that female

Page 28
17
teachers have higher job satisfaction than their male counterparts (Michaelowa, 2002; Spear,
Gould, & Lee, 2000) when allowed to exercise autonomy in the decision making in their
classrooms (French, Sumsion, Robertson, & Goodfellow, 2008). In contrast to these opposing
findings, still other studies have found no difference at all between males and females as related
to job satisfaction (Gosnell, 2000; Sargent & Hannum, 2003). Therefore, it appears that the
teacher’s gender is not a significant, predictable determinant of teacher job satisfaction.
Similarly, there is contradicting evidence regarding the relationship between teacher job
satisfaction and length of service. Bishay (1996) found that the longer a teacher is employed in
the education field, the higher his or her reported job satisfaction. Other research has found
similar results and adds that the longer a teacher chooses to stay in the field of education, the
more likely he or she will plan to retire from the field without switching career paths (Ilgan,
Parylo, & Sungu, 2015). However in a different study, Gosnell (2000) reported a negative
relationship between length of service and teachers’ job satisfaction meaning that the longer a
teacher is employed in the education field the lower the job satisfaction of that teacher. Similar
results were even found when looking at early childcare teachers’ job satisfaction when the
research indicated the longer a person is employed as an early childcare teacher (pre-school) the
more dissatisfied the teacher became (Kim & Yang, 2016). There is further evidence that
suggests that those with less than five years of service are most satisfied while those who have
been teaching for ten years or more are least satisfied with the job (Agho, Mueller, & Price,
1993; Crossman & Harris, 2006; Poppleton & Risborough, 1991). One possible reason for the
varied findings regarding the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and length of service
is that teachers are goal oriented and satisfied when they meet those goals (Gaziel, 2014);
however, education is constantly changing field (Bogler, 2001) and therefore, the goals are

Page 29
18
constantly changing making it difficult for teachers to measure their personal success. Teachers
who are new to the profession have not been around long enough to realize the changes required,
while those veteran teachers that have been teaching for more than ten years have seen a number
of changes. It is difficult to reach one’s goals when the goals are constantly changing. Another
possible reason for the differences in research findings concerning teacher job satisfaction and
length of service is the compensation of teachers has had very little increase over the years
(Evans, 2001). Most people enter the workforce with the expectation of improving one’s salary
with ongoing training and years of experience; however, the field of education has seen a
sluggish growth of compensation and benefits over past decades (Green & Munoz, 2016).
Another facet of job satisfaction that has been studied is the communication style of the
teacher. Teachers’ communication styles have been studied to determine if the way in which a
teacher communicates with his or her students is related to teacher job satisfaction. Researchers
DiClemente, Ditrinco, Gibbons, and Myers (2013) found that instructors who reported the
highest job satisfaction present themselves in the classroom in a manner that invites student
participation and involvement. The reason is because teachers who convey to students that they
are interested in their welfare, receptive to their needs and caring have students who in turn are
more engaged in the learning experiences in the classroom. These teachers report being more
satisfied with their job because they are able to get to know their students on an interpersonal
level and authentic manner. When teachers invest in their students, the students invest in
learning. On the other hand, the same researchers found that teachers who communicate with a
controlling, authoritarian manner or in an entertaining way are less satisfied with their jobs
because these types of behaviors do not motivate students or enhance teaching. Teachers who

Page 30
19
use a relaxed, attentive, and open communication style with students are more satisfied with their
job than those who are authoritative in their communication style.
Likewise, Dinham and Scott (1998) found that teachers who report the highest level of
satisfaction with their job are the ones who have been able to establish a connection and build
relationships with current and past students and their families by keeping in touch after the
student leaves the teacher’s classroom. When a teacher is able to make an interpersonal
relationship by establishing a friendship with a student, and his or her family members, the
teacher feels as if a lasting contribution has been made in that student’s life therefore increasing
overall job satisfaction. Another indication of the importance of teacher-student relationships is
found in the study by Shann (1998), which concluded that teachers felt that developing teacher-
student relationships was the most critical aspect of the job and what teachers like first and
foremost about their jobs were the students. The most effective teachers place an emphasis on
building the student-teacher relationship through mutual respect and trust (Gay, 1995) and by
doing so student achievement rates are often higher because students know their teacher cares
about them on an interpersonal level (Dinham & Scott, 1998). In these situations, teachers report
an overall higher job satisfaction (Dinham & Scott, 1998; Shann 1998).
Some research has looked at the differences in teacher job satisfaction between public
school teachers and private school teachers. Gius (2015) found that private school teachers are
“much more satisfied” with their chosen profession than their public school teachers
counterparts. The reason, according to that researcher, is because private schools do not have to
contend with the variety of issues troubling the public education school systems, such as state-
mandated assessment testing and declining government funding. This finding is especially
interesting given that the national average salary for private school teachers is $10,000 less per

Page 31
20
year than public school teachers (Heywood, Siebert, & Wei, 2002) even though on average, the
field of education has experienced a slow growth of compensation and benefits over past decades
(Green & Munoz, 2016). Guis (2012 & 2013) considered the effects of merit pay on teacher job
satisfaction and found that teachers in merit pay districts were less satisfied with their jobs and
were more likely to leave for better pay elsewhere. This was true for both private school
teachers and public school teachers; even so, the private school teachers receiving merit pay still
reported an overall higher job satisfaction than the public school teachers receiving merit pay
(Guis, 2013).
There are two variables commonly investigated regarding teacher job satisfaction that
have similar findings across the research. First, the findings of several studies looking at teacher
compensation as correlated to teacher job satisfaction have found that salary is an irrelevant
variable. Sylvia and Hutchinson (1985), Perie and Baker (1997), as well as Sargent and Hannum
(2003) reported no significance between teacher salary, merit pay for outstanding performance,
teaching rewards (i.e., tangible materials for classroom use), or benefits and teacher job
satisfaction. This means that teacher salary and other benefits do not seem to have an influence
on teacher job satisfaction. One explanation for this is that teachers have a certain expectation
when entering the field of education in terms of compensation and as long as they receive what is
expected, there is no negative effect on job satisfaction (Abd-el-Fattah, 2010). This is true for
both public and private school teachers (Gius, 2015). The second variable that has consistent
findings in research for a relationship to job satisfaction is the academic attainments of teachers.
Research by Dabo (1998), Gosnell (2000), Michaelowa (2002) and Sargent and Hannum (2003)
all found a significant relationship between teachers’ academic attainments and teachers’ self-
reported job satisfaction. The results of each of these studies suggest that the higher the degree a

Page 32
21
teacher earns the lower his or her job satisfaction. The more qualified teachers who have
returned to college to earn advanced degrees or areas of specialized training are less satisfied
with their jobs as teachers than those teachers who remain less qualified upholding only the
minimal degree required to be an educator. In addition to these findings, more qualified teachers
who have pursued advanced graduate level degrees are more likely to leave the field of teaching
in search of other career opportunities (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Schlechty & Vance, 1983).
This corresponds with the evidence that suggests that those with less than five years of service
are most satisfied while those who have been teaching for ten years or more are least satisfied
with the job (Poppleton & Risborough, 1991; Crossman & Harris, 2006). As teachers continue
in the field of education, some will seek higher level of degrees for various reasons. Advanced
degrees are used for higher compensation and for advancement opportunities. Teachers’ major
concern with their compensation was the lack of income growth potential over the course of their
career acknowledging the fact that they will be earning roughly the same when they retire as
when they were first hired (Larkin, 2016; Maehr & Braskamp ,1986). Many people enter the
workforce with the expectation of improving one’s salary with ongoing training and years of
experience as they approach retirement; however, the field of education has seen a slow-moving
growth of compensation and benefits over past decades (Green & Munoz, 2016). Relatively
stagnant compensation may lead some teachers to the desire to advance their education in order
to increase their income; however, teachers who have pursued advanced graduate level degrees
are more likely to leave the field of education altogether in search of other higher paying career
opportunities (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Schlechty & Vance, 1983).
Clearly, there are many variables that may contribute to a teachers’ level of job
satisfaction including workplace conditions, pay, relationships with staff, student behavior,

Page 33
22
parent participation, and a supportive administration (Abu-Taleb, 2013). At the school level,
teacher job satisfaction is related to school climate and workload stress (Sungu et al., 2014). At
the student level, teacher job satisfaction is connected to the racial make-up of the student
population, discipline problems of the school, and low-socioeconomic factors outside of teacher
control (Frankenburg, 2006). Within the last few years, the problems associated with teacher
attrition or teacher “burnout” have received a great deal of public emphasis and media exposure
(Abbey & Esposito, 2001). Various human relationships within work environments along with
other variables have been investigated as possible explanations for the high number of reported
teachers with job dissatisfaction. Although social support has been identified as a buffer against
teacher job dissatisfaction, little research has been conducted in this area (Abbey & Esposito,
2001). Providing enough classroom supplies and mentors to new teachers as well as increasing
administrative support will assist in the improvement of the working conditions for teachers and
thus, may lead to improved job satisfaction (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Several researchers have
investigated the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and supportive administration
leadership (Kirby, Paradise, & King, 1992; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Silins, 1992);
however, these studies have focused on higher education teachers at colleges and universities and
their relationship between supervising department chairs or deans. While many different
variables that may affect teacher job satisfaction have been researched, the problem remains that
a crucial factor has not yet been investigated; specifically, the connection between teacher job
satisfaction and principal’s leadership styles. This study contributes to the knowledge base of the
impact of school administration leadership styles as related to overall teacher job satisfaction.
The purpose of the present study is to add to the theoretical understanding by filling in gaps of
the current understanding of what contributes to teacher job satisfaction.

Page 34
23
Types of Leadership
Leadership is not a new concept, but it was not until almost the 20
th
century that scholars
began to study leadership intensely (Bass, 1990). The Hawthorne studies in the 1930s first drew
scholars’ attention to the possible link between employees’ job satisfaction and job performance
(Sarri & Judge, 2004; Wren, 1994). During the Hawthorne studies, employees in a factory were
monitored more closely in attempts to improve their overall job performance and productivity;
however, it was discovered that their performance only increased when the employees knew they
were being watched, but their reported job satisfaction declined under the scrutiny (Rowden &
Conine, 2005). As a result, the topic of job satisfaction because a prevalent area of study and led
to advances in many different contexts in work environments around the world (Katz, 2004). It
is important, because of the previous research outlined thus far, to consider principal leadership
style as a possible influence affecting job satisfaction for teachers.
Leadership is the process that includes influencing the task objectives and strategies
needed to meet those objectives to a group or organization (Khanna, 2010). In other words,
leadership is the ability to motivate others by providing guidance, purpose, direction, and
inspiration in an effort to achieve a goal or set of goals through collaboration and working
together. School leadership is defined as influencing people within the school to implement
strategies and achieve objectives in order to improve student achievement (Blasé, J. & Kirby,
1992). The development and growth of a school system depends on the relationship between a
leader and his or her followers (Khanna, 2010). Leaders approach their employees in a number
of different ways. A school’s effectiveness can be maintained if the school principal’s leadership
style adequately matches the school’s situation (Theodory, 1981a). If a leader is able to change
the motivational priorities for the subordinates, then the leader is able to be either task oriented

Page 35
24
or relationship oriented based on the situation (Theodory, 1981b). The qualities of a leader may
determine a specific style for the leader, which may create a positive picture of the leader among
subordinates (Amin et al., 2013). The method in which one chooses to guide his or her followers
is called leadership style. Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction,
motivating people, and implementing plans (Newstrom & Davis, 1993). The leadership style
that the principal of a school chooses to exercise is supported by the culture and context of that
institution, which may affect the teachers’ job satisfaction (Al-Omari, 2008). What makes the
study of leadership style so interesting is that there are so many different kinds. Sources vary on
the exact number of leadership styles possible; however, most agree that a leader will exhibit
some traits from more than one style and may in fact change the leadership style used depending
on the situation (Howell & Costley, 2001; Theodory, 1981). Literature suggests job satisfaction
of subordinates is related to the support received from superiors (Abbey & Esposito, 2001). The
manner in which principals are selected and the leadership style they use with employees may
have potential impact with regard to teacher job satisfaction (Blasé & Kirby, 1992). For the
purposes of this research, only three types of leadership styles are examined which are
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is when the followers and their leaders inspire each other to
achieve higher levels motivation in order to collaborate together through the process of change
for the benefit of the whole organization (Burns, 1978; Sillins, 1994). A transformational leader
is one who takes care of his or her followers in such a way that their forces are combined to meet
the needs and potential of the school (Burns, 2003). A transformational leader works with the
subordinates to achieve goals by increasing motivation by creating a support system. This form

Page 36
25
of leadership comprises of behavior that encourages followers by boosting performance ahead of
expectations while promoting new approaches to solve problems and encourages changes in
order to meet the organization’s vision efficiently (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000).
Continuing in the study of transformational leadership style, Bass and Avolio along with another
associate identified four dimensions of transformational leadership (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995).
Idealized Influence: The leaders with an idealized influence function as strong leaders
and role models for the followers because they have exceptional abilities and high ethical and
moral principles (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Subordinates gladly follow leaders using
idealized influence transformational leadership because the leader has inspired the followers
through exceptional personal performance and the followers idealize that behavior (Aydin et al.,
2013). A leader using transformation idealized influence will prioritize the needs of subordinates
over their own and will offer the followers a vision worthy of inspiration (Amin et al., 2013).
The idealized influence form of transformational leadership is an indication of whether a leader
is able to hold subordinates’ trust, maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, and
appeal to their hopes and dreams (Avolio et al., 1995). In essence, an idealized influence
transformational leader is a role model for others to follow.
Inspirational Motivation: These leaders are inspirational to their followers by
identifying high goals, creating a team spirit, and offering appealing visions of the upcoming
circumstances if the goals are reached (Amin et al., 2013; Aydin et al., 2013). Transformational
leaders who are inspirational motivators are seen as people who are filled with passion and
optimism and have a dedication to reaching objectives (Bass, 1985). They are able to convey
clear objectives and enthusiasm for reaching goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The inspirational
motivation leader provides vision, helps others focus on their work, and tries to make others feel

Page 37
26
like their work and effort is significant (Avolio et al., 1995). At the core of their abilities, an
inspirational motivation transformational leader is an encourager that emboldens others to
achieve greatness.
Intellectual Stimulation: Transformational leaders often motivate their followers to be
innovative, analytic, and creative (Aydin et al, 2013). Intellectual stimulation refers to the
leadership style that inspires subordinates to be imaginative and resourceful in their problem
solving approach (Amin et al., 2013) and criticism of subordinates’ errors is not encouraged
because these errors represent areas of potential growth (Bass, 1998). Subordinates are
encouraged to challenge not only their own thinking but also the viewpoints of and values of the
leader and the organization (Amin et al., 2013). The focus of meetings is usually the
brainstorming of new ideas and the production of creative solutions to problems (Amin et al.,
2013; Aydin et al., 2013). Leaders who use transformational intellectual stimulation when
dealing with subordinates encourage others to be creative in looking at old problems in new
ways, are tolerant of extreme positions, and nurtures people to question their own beliefs and
values (Avolio et al., 1995). An inspirational motivation transformational leader is a person who
seeks out creative solutions to challenges and often thinks “outside of the box” when problem
solving.
Individualized Consideration: Individualized consideration represents leaders act as a
team coach by focusing on individual needs, helping each person to reach his or her full growth
and potential (Amin et al., 2013; Aydin et al., 2013). Transformational leaders help followers to
be successful and to thrive. The use of an encouraging atmosphere, recognizing the differences
of each individual person, is crucial because strengths of the followers are encouraged while
weaknesses are developed into strengths through mentoring from the leader (Bass & Avolio,

Page 38
27
2000; Northhouse, 2010). A transformational leader who utilizes individual consideration
shows an interest in others’ well-being, assigns projects individually based on people’s specific
strengths and weaknesses, and gives close attention to those who seem less involved in the group
(Avolio et al., 1995). A leader who uses individualized consideration shows empathy and
responsiveness to the uniqueness of his or her individual followers.
Transactional Leadership
A second kind of leadership, transactional leadership, is where the leaders identify the
key responsibilities for the follows to accomplish, establish the measure for determining if the
goals are satisfactorily met, and then evaluate the followers on their ability to finish the planned
work (Aydin et al., 2013). The followers are given rewards or negative consequences in relation
to their ability to achieve the organizational goals (Kottkamp, Mulhern, & Hoy, 1987).
Transactional leadership results in a routinized, non-creative but stable environment (Bogler,
2001). This form of leadership is supported by an exchange between the leader and the
subordinates where a decision is made about the goals and the procedure for attaining those goals
by means of rewards and the use of coercion in order to acquire the subordinate’s compliance
(Amin et al., 2013). There are three dimensions associated with transactional leadership which
are contingent reward, active management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception
(Avolio et al., 1995).
Contingent Reward: The primary aim of a transactional leader is to ensure the
organization’s objectives are achieved through the effort of the workers (Aydin et al., 2013).
When transactional leaders use contingent rewards, the leader will give various awards to
improve the performance and motivations of the followers when performance objectives are
fulfilled (Avolio et al., 1995). These rewards may be in the form of monetary compensation or
 Page 39
28
other tangible items that are used to entice the subordinates into minimal compliance or
exceptional performance. A transactional leader using contingent rewards tells others what to do
in order to be rewarded, emphasizes what is expected, and ensures that people are recognized for
their accomplishments (Avolio et al., 1995). A leader who uses transactional contingent rewards
motivates subordinates through the use of extrinsic, tangible recognition for achievements.
Active Management-by-Exception: In this transactional leadership behavior, the leader
evaluates the workers looking closely for mistakes or deviances from the expectations of their
jobs and then immediately takes corrective action against the subordinate (Bass, 1998). This is
done through tracking of workers’ performance and actively seeking out opportunities for growth
and development to be implemented straightaway (Aydim et al., 2013). In this leadership style,
the leader is task oriented with little regard for developing personal relationships with the
subordinates (Theodory, 1981b). During this type of leadership style, leaders correct the
mistakes of the followers immediately because performance is actively tracked and monitored.
Passive Management-by-Exception: When a leader uses the transactional passive
management-by-exception leadership style, the leader waits until the performance indicates there
is a problem and then addresses the concerns (Aydin et al., 2013). The difference between the
active management-by-exception style and the passive management-by-exception style is when
the problems are noticed. With active management-by-exception, the leader actively watches the
employee’s behavior and makes corrections when the employee deviates from the expectations.
On the other hand, with passive management-by-exception, the leader inactively watches the
results of the employee’s work and takes corrective action when the expected outcome of the
work is not adequate to standards. In the passive form of transactional leadership, the leader
waits until the subordinates’ mistakes have affected the end product’s results before taking

Page 40
29
corrective measures (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2010). When a leader uses transactional
management-by-exception leadership style, whether active or inactive, the leader tells others the
job requirements and expectations, remains content with standard performance, and does not
actively try to improve the status quo (Avolio et al., 1995).
Laissez-Faire Leadership
The third kind of leadership style investigated for the purposes of this study is laissez-
faire leadership. Bass (1990) defines laissez-faire as an approach in which there is essentially no
leadership or the absence of leadership entirely. A laissez-faire leader will delay decision
making and offers no feedback to the followers (Amin et al., 2013). These types of leaders do
not take care of their employees’ needs or concerns and allows everything within the
organization to continue as it always has in the past (Aydin et al., 2013). Employees, therefore,
are often left without guidance or support and this can be especially damaging for new
employees who do not receive proper training in order to do their job effectively. There is a
negative relationship between the satisfaction, performance and motivation of the subordinates
under a laissez-faire leadership style (Rowold & Scholtz, 2009).
Analysis of Leadership Styles
The culture of the school may influence the leadership style of the principal
(Al-Omari, 2008) and therefore, in different cultural contexts different leadership styles are
preferred and practiced (Shahin & Wright, 2004). An effective leader will adapt his or her
leadership style to match the needs of the school or even individual teachers. A confident
opinion about a leader’s ability may lead towards a positive change in the behavior or attitude of
the groups’ members and may enhance efficient productivity (Bogler, 2001). Teachers who have
faith in their leader and respect the leader will be more likely to have increased productivity and

Page 41
30
a higher level of job satisfaction. The job satisfaction of subordinates is related to the support
received from superiors (Abbey & Esposito, 2001) and the more supportive a teacher feels his or
her leader is, the higher the reported job satisfaction for that teacher. The manner in which
principals are selected and the leadership style they use with employees may have potential
impact with regard to teacher job satisfaction. Assuring job satisfaction over a long-term
requires careful planning and effort by both the administration and by teachers (Saeed et al.,
2011). When teachers are satisfied with their jobs, they will be more likely to stay in the
profession.
Transformational leadership is thought to be a critical approach in terms of organizational
innovation in education (Aydin et al., 2013) because job satisfaction is influenced by the
employee’s personal characteristics, the leadership style, and the nature of the work itself (Saeed
et al., 2011). Transformational leaders can create a positive working climate, reach goals more
easily because they have motivated their followers, and create an effective environment where all
members are striving to achieve the same goals and vision for the organization (Amin et al.,
2013). Group effectiveness can be maintained if the school principal’s leadership style
adequately matches the school situation (Theodory, 1981a). When a principal is able to relate to
his or her followers and encourage them to accomplish the task at hand through encouragement
and motivation, it is likely that the school will be effective in reaching its goals. Teachers are
likely to report higher job satisfaction when they perceive their principal as someone who shares
information with others, delegates responsibilities, and keeps open channels of communication
with the teachers (Bogler, 2001) because in this type of environment, teachers feel like they are
part of the team (Saeed et al., 2011) and their opinions and ideas are valued.

Page 42
31
However, in different cultural contexts, different leadership styles are preferred and
practiced (Amin et al., 2013). There are some situations where a supportive transformational
leadership style is not the preferred method of empowering the subordinates. For example, if the
culture of the school is one where the teachers seem to thrive in a competitive situation, a
principal might choose to set goals for the teachers and then reward their efforts in some tangible
way by using the transactional contingent reward leadership style. Some studies have found that
the contingent reward and the active management-by-exception leadership styles have a positive
relationship with the followers’ job satisfaction with contingent reward having the highest
positive effect (Dastoor, Suwannachin, & Golding, 2003).
Very little research supports the use of laissez-faire leadership styles as an effective
leadership style (Aydin et al., 2013). In fact, Bass (1990) defines laissez-faire as an approach in
which there is no leadership and no interaction between the leader and his or her followers. In
situations where a leader exhibits laissez-faire behavior, another person with a different
leadership style will often emerge as the trusted and respected leader of the group (Dastoor et al.,
2003) and others will seek out this second person for guidance and support. In a number of
studies, laissez-faire behavior by the leader was perceived to have a significant negative
relationship with employees’ job satisfaction (Avolio et al.,, 1999; Northhouse, 2010.)
Need for Study
Numerous variables have been explored to determine their impact on teacher job
satisfaction. In addition, three different types of leadership styles have been identified and
explained. Information thus far from the knowledge base of available research does not provide
a clear answer to if leadership styles from principals affect teacher job satisfaction in high
schools, middle schools, or elementary schools. The research has been clear on several factors

Page 43
32
that have an influence on teacher job satisfaction. Likewise, research also leans towards the use
of transformational leadership as the most effective, with transactional also being effective
depending on the culture of the work environment. The present student seeks to add another
dimension to the available research by looking at the influence of principal leadership styles on
teacher job satisfaction in an attempt to fill gaps in the current theoretical understand of principal
leadership styles as it relates to teacher job satisfaction.
Summary
The review of literature highlighted how the teaching profession faces challenges because
it is continuously changing and evolving. Education must meet the needs of social, political, and
cultural changes (Saeed et al., 2011) and schools and teachers are expected to adapt to these
changes in order to provide academic enrichment and education to all students. The teaching
profession faces challenges that continuously reconfigures knowledge, rules, skills, attitudes, and
ways of professional development (Massari, 2015). Teachers are challenged with meeting the
academic, social and developmental needs of students with diverse needs and backgrounds. As
such, teachers encounter many different variables that may contribute to teacher job satisfaction
or dissatisfaction. Teachers who are unsatisfied with their positions may not perform to the best
of their capabilities, stifling the continuous learning process for the students in their school.
The review of literature looked at many variables that have been previously considered
by other researchers in relation to job satisfaction. Variables such as classroom size, the
availability of paraprofessionals, the use of current materials and resources, family health and
social service problems, student absenteeism, behavior and discipline concerns were each found
to have different amounts of influence over teacher job satisfaction. In addition research
considering teacher gender, length of service, monetary compensation, and the attainment of

Page 44
33
advanced degrees in relationship to teacher job satisfaction have been considered. Each of these
variables added to the growing body of knowledge about teacher attrition due to job
dissatisfaction. The present study seeks to add another dimension to the available research by
looking at the influence of principal leadership styles on teacher job satisfaction. While
leadership styles in multiple other business contexts have been extensively investigated (Amin et
al., 2003), very little empirical research has been in the context of education facilities and what
has been completed has mostly been at the secondary level of colleges and universities in other
countries (Al-Omari, 2008). This study will fill gaps in the available research and theoretical
understanding of leadership style as it relates to teacher job satisfaction by investigating the
relationships at the high school, middle school, and elementary school levels.
 Page 45
34
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of the study is to understand the relationship between principal leadership
styles and the influence it has on teacher job satisfaction. The study strives to add to the
growing body of knowledge that has looked at many different variables that may affect teacher
job satisfaction by looking at yet another variable that is important to consider. This chapter
examines the research methodology including the population and sample, instrumentation, data
collection, and describes how the researcher will analyze the data.
Due to NCLB and the increased accountability for student academic achievement, school
districts continue to face an increased pressure to demonstrate student academic gains. Teaching
has become a challenging profession that is constantly changing. Every year, new teachers enter
the field of education and need support and guidance to assist them in a successful integration
into the classroom (Billingsley, Israel, & Smith, 2011). A negative first-year experience may
lead to teachers choosing to leave the profession (Paris, 2013). Many teachers report the
decision to leave the teaching profession was partially due to the lack of support from their
administrators (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2005). Increasing administrator support can
assist in the improvement of the working conditions for new teachers (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003)

Page 46
35
and may lead to increased teacher job satisfaction. Teachers who are unsatisfied with their
positions may not preform to the best of their capabilities or may become frustrated with the
profession and leave the field of teaching altogether (Blasé & Kirby, 1992). Principals can gain
valuable information about how their own leadership style affects teachers’ job satisfaction.
The goal of the present study is to examine the effects of principals’ leadership styles on
teachers’ job satisfaction. A mixed methods research design using both quantitative and
qualitative data is used to examine the relationships among the study variables.
Variables
Independent Variable: For purposes of this study, the independent variable is the
principals’ leadership styles, of which three types were investigated: transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire. It should be noted that the study is aimed to examine the
teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ leadership style rather than the principals’ actual
leadership style. Therefore, throughout the study, when the concept of leadership style is
discussed, the references are to the teachers’ views rather than the actual observed behavior of
the principals. Quantitative data collected through the use of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire was used to measure this variable. This questionnaire measures leadership styles
(Amin et al., 2013) and identifies the leader in question as transformational, transactional, or
laissez-faire in terms of their perceived leadership characteristics.
Dependent Variable:  The dependent variable is the self-reported job satisfaction of the
teachers. Quantitative data collected through the use of the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job
Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS) was used to measure this variable (Appendix B). This scale
measures both intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators (Mohrman, Cooke, Mohrman,
Duncan, & Zaltman, 1977). Intrinsic motivators are those aspects of an individual’s job that
 Page 47
36
impart feelings of achievement, positive self-esteem, accomplishment, personal development,
and fulfillment of expectations (Sergiovanni, 1992). On the other hand, extrinsic motivators are
those aspects of an individual’s job such as fair treatment, degree of respect, the amount of
supervision received, the feeling of being informed, and the opportunity for meaningful
participation in the development of procedures and goals at their work (Herzberg, 1966). In
addition to the quantitative data collected through use of the MCMJSS, qualitative data was also
gathered but not in the statistical analysis. Qualitative data was gathered by interviewing three
teachers who were representatives of the schools used in the study. Open-ended questions were
asked of the teachers to provide additional insight to the reasons for their personal job
satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Population and Sample
The population for the study consisted of all certified teachers who were employed full-
time at any of the nine schools chosen for analysis in the study. The study and sample was
restricted to a small school district in a rural county of East Tennessee with a population of
approximately 19,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). The school system has five
elementary schools (PreK – 5th grades), one middle school (6th – 8th grades), one high school
(9th – 12th grades), and two alternative schools (one for elementary aged students and one for
middle school combined with high school aged students). Teachers were made aware that
participation in the study was strictly voluntary through an informed consent letter explaining the
purpose of the research (Appendix A). Teachers understood that refusing to participate carried
no penalty for the teachers; however, 100% of the eligible teachers participated.
The sample of participants surveyed consisted of the entire population of full-time
employed certified teachers in a single small county of East Tennessee, omitting only seven

Page 48
37
teachers. At the time of data collection there were 235 teachers working in the school district. In
addition to regular education classroom teachers, the sample included special education teachers
and “special area” teachers (i.e. music, gym, computer lab, and library). Not included in the
sample were paraprofessionals who serve as teacher assistants but are not licensed teachers.
Teacher effectiveness scores, which include student growth measures and academic
achievement, were not considered as stipulations of the study. Also not stipulations for the study
were teacher gender, or level of education attained. Other than full-time employment as a
certified teacher, the only other stipulation for participation in the study was that the teacher had
worked for the school district for a minimum of one full academic calendar year, which excluded
five new teachers from participation. This was necessary to ensure that all participants had a
working knowledge of their principal through personal experience as a teacher in the school.
Two additional teachers were excluded because they were on maternity leave, although still
counted in the list of teachers working in the county at the time of data collection. All of the
leaders (nine principals) and participants (228 respondents) had a working relationship of a
minimum of one full academic school year.
Description of Instruments
A number of questionnaires have been developed, based on various theories and models,
to measure teachers’ job satisfaction (Abd-El-Fattah, 2010) and also different leadership styles
(Wilkinson & Wagner (1993). For purposes of this study two different survey instruments were
used to collect the data for analysis, one to measure teachers’ job satisfaction levels and the other
to measure principals’ leadership styles. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Appendix
B) used to ascertain the teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ leadership style, while the

Page 49
38
Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS) (Appendix C) was used to
determine each teacher’s self-reported level of job satisfaction.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Appendix B) is a 21 item survey that uses a 4-
point Likert-scale which asks respondents about their perceptions of the leadership style of their
principals, according to the three categories of transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, and laissez-fair leadership (Avolio et al., 1995). According to its authors, the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire measures individual leadership styles ranging from passive
leaders to transactional leaders who give contingent rewards to followers, to transformational
leaders who are able to transform their followers into becoming leaders themselves (Avolio &
Bass, 1991). The purpose of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is to reveal factors that
differentiate between effective and ineffective leaders. It is based the theoretical foundation of
the questionnaire is based on the work of Bass (1985; 1998) and is considered valid across a
number of cultures and types of organizations (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, (2003).
The MLQ consists of 21 phrases that describe one of three different types of leadership
styles which are transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. The quantitative questionnaire
using a Likert-type scale was given to the respondents who were instructed to think about their
current principal when answering the questions. The questionnaire asked a range of questions
about the perceptions of the leadership style and decision making strategies of the principal.
Each of the 21 questions used a 5-point scale (scored from 0 = not at all to 4 = frequently, if not
always) which asked the teachers about the leadership style of their principals. The data
collected from this instrument could identify four subcategories for transactional leadership
(idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration) as well as two subcategories for transactional leadership (contingent reward and

Page 50
39
management-by-exception). The MLQ has been tested by Bass in a number of studies and has
been found to have high validity and reliability (Bass, 1995; Bass, 1998; Bass, 1990; Bass &
Riggio, 2006). Although the MLQ is mostly used in military settings to test the leadership style
of the military leaders or in business settings to examine the leadership behaviors of the
management teams, the MLQ has also been successfully translated to other languages and used
in educational settings world- wide (Ingram, 1997).
The second and separate section of the questionnaire was the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman
Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS) (Appendix C) and was used to ascertain a person’s level of job
satisfaction, both intrinsically and extrinsically. The MCMJSS is designed to measure self-
perceived intrinsic, extrinsic, and overall general satisfaction (Mohrman et al., 1977). According
to the authors of the instrument, intrinsic satisfaction is perceived to come from features of the
work itself. Intrinsic motivators are those aspects of an individual’s job that impart feelings of
self-esteem and fulfillment (Sergiovanni, 1992). Mohrman et al., (1977) further explain that
extrinsic satisfaction stems from the context or situation in which the person performs their job.
To clarify, extrinsic motivators are those aspects of an individual’s job such as degree of respect
earned and the amount of supervision received (Herzberg, 1966).
The MCMJSS is divided into two categories, extrinsic and intrinsic, and there are four
statements in each category. A 6-point Likert scale (scored from 1 = low to 6 = high) was used
for participants to score their level of satisfaction for each statement. The developers of the
instrument have tested the validity and reliability in several different studies (Mohrman et al.,
1977; Mohrman et al., 1978)
Following a brief explanation of the purpose of the study, all certified teachers who met
the eligibility requirement to participate in the study were administered an informed consent

Page 51
40
(Appendix A) stapled to the two questionnaires used for data collection. For purposes of this
study, the respondents were instructed to refer to their current school principal and were asked to
complete both questionnaires. The participants were told that each survey would ask a range of
questions about their principal’s leadership style and decision making strategy, and about their
perceptions about the teaching occupation in terms of their personal job satisfaction from various
issues related to their work in the school system.
A few select teachers were interviewed in order to gain additional insight to the
quantitative data collection. It was anticipated that a qualitative approach gained through the
personal account of teachers would add to the interpretation of the numbers. The questions used
for the interview are located in Appendix D.
Research Procedures
Following the proposal presentation meeting explaining the planned research, an
application to conduct the research study was submitted by the researcher to the Institutional
Research Board at Carson-Newman University for approval. Additionally, on December 16,
2016 this researcher spoke with the Superintendent of the chosen school district during a
scheduled meeting to request permission to proceed with the research and data collection. This
researcher explained the purpose of the proposed research project and distributed copies of the
instruments planned for use for data collection. After reviewing the two questionnaires,
permission to conduct the study was granted. The permission obtained to begin data collection
serves as approval from the Superintendent of the school district necessary to complete this
research study. The Superintendent made the recommendation that data collection take place on
one day, instead of over a period of time, for ease of collection from the sample population and
to not disrupt teachers’ daily schedule and routines when their focus should be on their students.

Page 52
41
The Superintendent further encouraged this one day data collection procedure by stating that an
added benefit was that it would likely improve the response rate and return of useable
questionnaires if all the teachers were asked to complete the surveys at one time. Therefore, all
data collection took place on a single day on January 3, 2017. This particular day was a
Professional Development training day for the teachers and all teachers were at one school
building for the duration of the day for training purposes and were without students who
remained on winter holiday for the day.
Data Collection
This researcher gave a brief speech to all the faculty of the school system, introducing the
purpose of the research project by stating that the current study was looking into what variables
affected job satisfaction for teachers for purposes of a graduate course requirement. The purpose
of the research project was explained and all teachers were informed that they could deny their
participation in data collection without any explanation, penalty, or cost to them. Further
explanation outlined which persons were eligible to participate in the study (certified teachers
who had a minimum of one academic years’ experience working in the school with their current
principal). This criteria excluded paraprofessionals and other support personnel who do not hold
a teaching license; however, this description allowed some teachers who do not currently teach
in a classroom but are still under the supervision of the principal, such as instructional facilitators
and data coaches, to be included in the data collection process. Participants were asked to review
the informed consent (Appendix A) and were told that their submission of the surveys would
constitute their agreement to voluntarily partake in the study. The respondents were instructed
to refer to their current school principal and to fill out two short questionnaires that asked a range
of questions about the principal’s leadership style, their perceptions about the teaching

Page 53
42
occupation, and their satisfaction from various issues related to the school work. The informed
consent and questionnaires administered simultaneously to all of the teachers who met the
qualifications to participate in the study (minimum of one full academic year of service) along
with writing tools. The researcher then left the room while the teachers responded to the surveys
to protect confidentiality. The principals of each school, who were not eligible to be respondents
of the questionnaires for purposes of this study, stayed in the room with the teachers, but
conducted an administrator meeting privately amongst themselves in a corner while the teachers
completed the task of answering the survey questions independently. The support staff who did
not participate in the data collection left the room for the duration of the time it took the teachers
to complete the surveys, approximately 20 minutes, and then were summoned back to the
meeting room via the school intercom system. In order to maintain confidentiality of the
participants, the principal of each school was provided with an envelope for collection of the
surveys. The teachers placed their questionnaires in the appropriate envelope marked by school.
The principals then sealed the envelopes before returning the data directly to the researcher. A
total of 228 questionnaires were collected representing each of the nine schools in the school
district.
Following the quantitative data collection from the questionnaires, three teacher
colleagues were interviewed. One teacher from the high school, one teacher from the middle
school, and one teacher from an elementary school met with the researcher and engaged in an
open discussion led by the interview questions prepared (Appendix D). The teachers were asked
a series of questions and permitted to talk freely in a conversation style format in order to elicit
their responses concerning their personal level of job satisfaction and their perceptions of their
principal’s leadership style.

Page 54
43
Research Design
A quantitative, correlational research design was used for this study. Correlations
indicate the relationship between paired scores (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Walker, 2014) and a
correlational study is used for exploring relationships between independent and dependent
variables (Creswell, 2005). A correlational research design was appropriate for this study
because data could be statistically analyzed to identify whether or not principal leadership styles
directly affects teacher job satisfaction.
More specifically, multiple regression is a type of correlational procedure that evaluates
relationships among several variables (Ary et al., 2014). A multiple regression analysis is an
appropriate technique for measuring the relationship between more than one predictor variables
and a criterion variable (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The general purpose of multiple
regression is to learn more about the relationship between several independent variables and a
dependent variable. In the case of the present study, the data was collected using two Likert-
scale questionnaires to determine if a relationship existed between the leadership style of the
principal (predictor variables) and the level of job satisfaction for the teachers (criterion
variable). The three leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) are the
independent variables and the teachers’ job satisfaction is the dependent variable. Therefore, this
study employed the use of multiple regression in order to analyze the quantitative data. The
results were analyzed to determine if the level of job satisfaction was impacted by the principals’
leadership style. In addition, the researcher interviewed three teachers to gather personal
narratives concerning the variables that contribute to their level of job satisfaction. This
qualitative data was not used in the data analysis process, but did add possible insight to
understanding the numbers.

Page 55
44
This chapter examined the research methodology including the variables, population,
instrumentation, research procedures, data collection process, appropriateness of the design, and
data analysis. The following chapter will review the results and analysis of the findings.

Page 56
45
CHAPTER 4
Results of the Data Analysis
Introduction
The occupation of teaching is a continuously changing field where the impact has lasting
effects on future generations. Over the past 20 years, the teaching profession has undergone
many changes (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2008). School districts and specifically teachers are
expected to provide a high quality education to all students. School districts are under increased
scrutiny to ensure all students demonstrate academic achievement. The constantly changing
field of education is very challenging. Teachers need support and guidance to assist them as they
learn to be successful educators in the classroom (Billingsley, Israel, & Smith, 2011). Teachers
may experience failures within the first few years if not given proper support (Delgado, 1999).
New educators may feel underprepared for the reality of teaching and may also experience a
feeling of isolation causing them to be reluctant to ask for assistance to avoid appearing
inadequate (Ingersoll, 2002). These combined reasons may lead to job dissatisfaction. With the
feeling of inadequacy, isolation, and failure it is not surprising that many teachers leave the field
of teaching altogether stating low job satisfaction as a reason for their departure (Ingersoll,
2002). Often times, many highly qualified teachers leave the profession claiming one reason is
because of job dissatisfaction. Teacher attrition has a negative effect on student academic
 Page 57
46
success (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2008) and thus, the overall achievement of students
decreases (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2008).
Research has found that teachers who have higher levels of job satisfaction have higher
commitment to the profession and are less likely to leave the field of education to pursue other
career choices (Larkin, Brantley-Dias, & Lokey-Vaga, 2016). There are many variables that
may attribute to a teachers’ level of job satisfaction. Several researchers have investigated the
relationship between teacher job satisfaction and supportive administration leadership (Kirby,
Paradise, & King, 1992; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Silins, 1992). However, a gap in the
research remains in that a crucial factor has not yet been investigated, namely the connection
between teacher job satisfaction and principal’s leadership styles.
The focus and motivation for this research study were to determine if there was a
relationship between principal’s perceived leadership styles and teachers’ reported job
satisfaction. Originally, the study planned to examine teachers in a small rural county within a
single school district at only the high school, middle school, and elementary school levels.
However, once the study was completed, data was actually gathered from nine schools total
including five elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and two alternative
schools within the same district.
The researcher examined data collected from two instruments used in the study to
identify and note emerging themes. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Appendix B)
determined the perceived leadership style of the principal and the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman
Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS) (Appendix C) established the self-reported level of teacher job
satisfaction. Results of the analysis in this research may contribute to a deeper understanding of
the impact of teachers’ level of job satisfaction. Understanding the impact of principal

Page 58
47
leadership styles on teacher job satisfaction will aid in developing parameters that lead to higher
teacher job satisfaction and potentially positively impact teacher retention. This study aims to
fill in gaps in the available knowledge base about what variables effect teacher job satisfaction.
Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between perceived principal
leadership styles and teacher job satisfaction. Keeping in view the purpose of the study, the
following research questions were used to guide this study:
What is the relationship between teachers’ perceived leadership style of their
principal and the teachers’ self-reported overall job satisfaction?
Is one leadership style over another (transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire) more likely to improve teacher job satisfaction?
Data Collection and Analysis
The population for this research consisted of all 235 certified teachers within the chosen
school district used for the study. In order to be considered eligible to participate, the teachers
must have had a full year’s experience in the school. This was necessary to ensure the teachers
would all have adequate working knowledge of their principal’s leadership behavior. Also, data
collection took place on a single day; therefore, to be included, teachers needed to be present on
the day of data collection. With these stipulations in mind, seven teachers were excluded
because they either had less than one full academic school year of experience in their school or
because they were on leave at the time of data collection. Therefore, the data collected came
from a sample which consisted of 228 usable responses. In order for the sample size to be
significant, a sample size of at least 119 responses (51%) was needed based on a degree of

Page 59
48
accuracy plus or minus 0.5, proportional sample size of .5, and a confidence level of 95%. The
actual response rate of 228 completed surveys was well above the minimum sample size of 119.
When consideration is given to the seven teachers who did not fit the criteria to be eligible to
participate, there was a 100% response rate. The response rate was significant enough to guide
the researcher in answering the research questions. Table 4.1 provides a detailed overview of the
participation by school.
Table 4.1
School Response Rates_____________________________________________________
Type of
Number of
Total Number of
Response
School
Respondents
Teachers
Rates_____
Elementary - 1
33
35
94%
Elementary - 2
16
17
94%
Elementary - 3
30
31
97%
Elementary - 4
27
27
100%
Elementary - 5
20
20
100%
Middle School
40
42
95%
High School
51
52
98%
Alternative - 1
5
5
100%
Alternative - 2
6
6
100%
TOTAL
228
235
97%_____
From the entire population of 235 teachers, 228 returned the surveys and therefore, by
voluntary participation became the study’s representative sample (97% return rate). The teachers
in this study were from each of the nine schools in the school district with a breakdown of 56%

Page 60
49
from the elementary schools, 17% from the middle school, 23% from the high school, and the
remaining 4% from the alternative schools as shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. Survey Participation Rate by School Type
Of the 126 elementary school teachers represented, 88% were women and 12% were
men. Of the 40 middle school teachers in the study, 75% were female and 25% were male. At
the high school level, 51 people returned a survey and of those, 75% were women and 25% were
men. The alternative schools combined have 11 teachers representing a group of 55% females
and 45% males. This information was obtained from the Superintendent when a list of the
teachers for each school was provided to the researcher; however, teacher gender was not used
for statistical analysis and serves only as demographic information for purposes of this study.
Each elementary school and alternative school was assigned a number to distinguish between the
56%
17%
23%
4%
Survey Participation Rate by School Type
Elementary Schools
Middle School
High School
Alternative Schools

Page 61
50
schools for purposes of data examination. Figure 4.2 shows the gender breakdown of the
teachers.
Figure 4.2. Demographic Teacher Gender Break Down by School Type
In reference to the first research question, which seeks to understand the relationship
between teachers’ perceived leadership style of their principal and the teachers’ self-reported
overall job satisfaction, multiple regression was used to identify if there was a significant
relationship between the variables. The output of multiple regression analysis to address the first
research question is presented in Table 4.2.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Female
Male

Page 62
51
Table 4.2
Relationship between the Teachers’ Overall Job Satisfaction and the Transformational,
Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles_________________________________
Adjusted R ______F test statistics________
___________________________________ Square
F
Significance____
Transformation, Transactional, &
Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
0.36
44.04
0.000
Beta (β)
t test statistics
t Significance
Transformational Leadership Style
0.68
7.60
0.000
Transactional Leadership Style
-0.12
-1.19
0.234
Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
0.10
1.52
0.129_____
Note. R
2
= 0.36 (p < 0.05)
According to the data, transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles
account for 36% of the variance in overall job satisfaction (adjusted R square 0.36). The
regression analysis yields R, the coefficient of multiple correlation, which indicates the
relationship between the predictor variables in combination and the criterion (Ary et al., 2014).
In this study, the predictor or independent variables are the three different leadership styles and
the criterion or dependent variable is the job satisfaction. The F test statistics for the adjusted R
is 44.04 and the associated p-value is 0.000. An F statistic is a value one gets when a regression
analysis is run to find if the means between two populations are significantly different (Ary et al,
2014.) It is essential to point out here that the Beta (β) weighting for the three independent
variables (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles) are calculated
relative to each other instead of independent of each other. When R is squared to get the
coefficient of determination, we know the amount of variability in the criterion that is due to
differences in scores on the predictor variables (Ary et al., 2014). Because the p value is less
than 0.05 it is, therefore, a significant relationship. A statistically significant relationship exists

Page 63
52
between overall job satisfaction and the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership styles at the 95% confidence level. In other words, the data indicates that principals’
leadership style does have an impact on teachers’ overall job satisfaction.
In reference to the second research question which seeks to identify which leadership
style over another is more likely to improve teacher job satisfaction, the data confirms that
transformational leadership is preferred. The data indicates that the transformational leadership
style has the strongest positive effect on overall job satisfaction (β = 0.68), and this is statistically
significant at the 95% confidence level because the t test statistics for the Beta is 7.60 and the
associated p-value is 0.000, which validates that p < 0.05. This was calculated relative to each of
the leadership styles rather than independent of the other leadership styles, which means that
transformational leadership style is preferred over transactional and laissez-faire leadership
styles. Additionally, the transactional leadership style has a negative effect on overall job
satisfaction (β = -0.12); however, this is statistically insignificant because the t test statistics is -
1.19 and the p-value (0.234) is greater than 0.05. Finally, the data shows that laissez-faire
leadership style has a positive effect on the overall job satisfaction of teachers (β = 0.10);
however, this is not statistically significant because the Beta is 1.52 and the accompanying p-
value is 0.129 which is greater than the 0.05 confidence level.
In order to add to the information gathered quantitatively using the data collected from
the two questionnaire instruments, qualitative data was also collected through teacher interviews.
Three teachers were interviewed simultaneously and asked a series of questions relating to their
own job satisfaction and the view of their principal’s leadership style. The teachers were
representative of the school district in that there was one teacher from the high school, middle
school, and an elementary school. This means each of the three teachers had a different principal

Page 64
53
to reference during the interview, with the implied understanding that no two leaders are exactly
alike in how they execute their leadership style. A discussion ensued and excerpts are used here
for added insight into the study’s findings. The questions that guided the teacher interviews are
found in Appendix D.
When asked what qualities of the principal do the teachers admire most that encourage
their respect, all three teachers reported their principal acts as a role model for the school by
highlighting the areas of strengths of the teachers and the students. M. Brown explained that the
principal often makes announcements about the positive things that are happening in the
classrooms which encourage other teachers to do the same in theirs (personal communication,
January 3, 2017). Another principal uses a bulletin board in the main hallway to acknowledge
the achievements of students and staff members who go above and beyond what is expected (S.
Jenkins, personal communication, January 3, 2017). The teachers agree that they respect their
principals because the use of the positive reinforcement shows that the principal is aware of what
is going on within the school and is dedicated to ensuring the school is successful. D. Beale
concludes that when the principal is highlighting the good attributes of the school, it encourages
others to meet or improve on those standards that have been set (personal communication,
January 3, 2017).
When asked how pressure is applied to people who do not meet job performance
expectations to encourage compliance, two teachers reported that correction is done privately.
(D. Beale, personal communication, January 3, 2017; S. Jenkins, personal communication,
January 3, 2017). They explained that teacher observations are done frequently, even if only
informal, and then private meetings are held between the teacher evaluated and the principal
following each observation. During these meetings, the principal outlines what was done well

Page 65
54
and where areas of needed improvement exist. All teachers receive these frequent informal
observations, whether needed or not, so that teachers who are not meeting job performance
expectations have time to correct their teaching practice prior to the formal evaluations. Because
the frequency of these observations is the same for everyone and because the meetings held with
the principals following the observations are private, no one knows who is struggling and who is
not (S. Jenkins, personal communication, January 3, 2017). Teachers, therefore, are given a
private opportunity to correct their sub-par performance and are not criticized publically in front
of their colleagues. This leads to higher job satisfaction because the teachers feel they are
supported by the administration and not in an environment where only negative behavior is
capitalized on for purposes of disciplinary action.
Finally, when asked what specifically does the principal do that affects the teachers’
personal overall level of job satisfaction, it was difficult for the teachers to name just one thing.
It appears that in each school represented, the principal does a number of things that promotes
job satisfaction for the teachers. However, when asked to narrow the list and choose the most
important, M. Brown reported the principal provides food occasionally for the school to share
and encourages teachers to mingle in the teachers’ lounge while eating and this improves the
overall school climate (personal communication, January 3, 2017). Another principal provides
opportunities for the teachers to observe each other during class instruction time, which allows
for the teachers to learn new and creative ideas to use in their own classrooms to engage students
and improve academic achievement (D. Beale, personal communication, January 3, 2013). The
third teacher, S. Jenkins, expressed gratitude to the principal for not forcing change immediately
when new constraints and demands are passed down from the state or school board, but that

Page 66
55
teachers are free to adapt as needed to meet the requirements (personal communication, January
3, 2017).
Summary
The research questions guiding this study examined the relationship between perceived
leadership style of the principal and self-reported teacher job satisfaction. Two questionnaires
were used, one determined level of overall job satisfaction and the other noted principal
leadership style tendencies. The qualitative data gathered indicates a significant relationship
between the independent variables as a whole (leadership style) and dependent variable (overall
job satisfaction). This means that for this study, perceived leadership style of the principal does
have a positive effect on reported job satisfaction levels for teachers. If a teacher is in favor of
the leadership style the principal chooses to use, his or her overall job satisfaction will be higher.
Therefore, principal leadership style is yet another variable for consideration when looking at
total factors that contribute to teacher job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Deeper analysis of the
quantitative data gathered from the questionnaire instruments shows that transformational,
relative to transactional and laissez-faire leadership style, has the most statistically significant
influence on teacher job satisfaction. Transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership are
statistically insignificant, although the laissez faire leadership had a positive result. The means
that teachers seem to prefer a leader who is transformational in leadership style over a principal
who utilizes transactional or laissez-faire leadership style. From the qualitative information
gathered through the teacher interviews, some personal insight was obtained about how principal
leadership influences teacher job satisfaction. The general perspective of the teachers
interviewed is that they prefer a principal who shows dedication to them and acts as a role model
in the school. They feel a sense of personal motivation when strengths of the school are

Page 67
56
publically highlighted; and the culture of the school improves when teachers are given the
opportunity to converse with each other and learn from each other’s own experiences in the
classroom. Understanding that in the field of education changes occur quite often, the teachers
appreciate principals who allow them to make those changes gradually at their own pace instead
of giving consequences for lack of immediate compliance.
This chapter described the response rate for the schools used in the study, identified the
gender demographic information of the sample, and explored the relationship between leadership
styles of principals and job satisfaction of teachers. Chapter 5 provides an in depth discussion of
the findings of the research. Additionally, Chapter 5 provides consideration of where future
research is still needed on this topic.

Page 68
57
CHAPTER 5
Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
Introduction
Teaching remains one of the greatest professions because it makes a lasting impact on
future generations. Teachers are constantly trying to improve their craft in order to ensure
optimal learning for their students. All school systems and educators are expected to provide a
high quality education to every student. Changes in the laws governing education practices over
the years have led to an increase in accountability as demonstrated by the No Child Left Behind
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (NCLB). Furthermore, school districts are under increased pressure
to ensure and prove that all students demonstrate academic achievement. The teaching
profession has undergone many changes and is not the same as it was a century or even a decade
ago (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2008). The constantly changing field of education produces
challenges for every teacher. Educators need support and leadership to assist them as they learn
to be successful teachers (Billingsley, Israel, & Smith, 2011). New teachers enter the classroom
with excitement and anticipation, but may experience failures within the first few years if not
given proper guidance (Delgado, 1999). Even after several years spent in college preparing for
their chosen profession, teachers may in fact feel underprepared once they are actually in a
classroom and this may also lead to experiencing a feeling of isolation causing them to be

Page 69
58
reluctant to ask for assistance to avoid appearing inadequate (Ingersoll, 2002). These combined
reasons often lead to job dissatisfaction and may cause teachers to leave the field of teaching
altogether in pursuit of other career choices (Ingersoll, 2002). Teacher attrition is damaging to
both school districts and students as it has a negative effect on student overall academic success
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2008). Highly qualified teachers are leaving the profession in
droves claiming one reason is job dissatisfaction.
Research has found that teachers who claim to have higher levels of job satisfaction have
higher commitment to the profession and are less likely to leave the field of education to pursue
other career choices (Larkin, Brantley-Dias, & Lokey-Vaga, 2016). There are many variables
that may attribute to a teachers’ level of job satisfaction including workplace conditions, pay,
relationships with staff, student behavior, parent participation, and a supportive administration
(Abu-Taleb, 2013). The current study attempted to add another layer of consideration when
examining teacher job satisfaction by looking at principal leadership styles. Relatively little
empirical research has been conducted on the relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and
leadership styles (Khanna, 2010) although it is generally agreed that when teachers are provided
with a supportive work environment they have higher job satisfaction (Klassen & Anderson,
2009).
Summary of the Study
This correlational study analyzed the interplay between teacher job satisfaction and the
perceived leadership style of the teachers’ principal. Research has shown that appropriate
leadership style is more likely to enhance job satisfaction among teachers (Bass, 1998). The
researcher utilized the theory that leadership style affects followers’ job satisfaction and looked
deeper into this relationship using two quantitative questionnaires given to teachers with a

Page 70
59
minimum of one full year experience that gathered data about their job satisfaction and their
perceptions of the administrator’s leadership style. Additionally, qualitative data was gathered in
the form of the teacher personal narratives to add insight to the meaning behind the numbers.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported teacher job
satisfaction and the perceived principal leadership style in order to fill gaps in the current
empirical understanding of what affects overall job satisfaction.
Research Questions
Keeping in view the purpose of the study, the following research questions were used to
guide this study:
What is the relationship between teachers’ perceived leadership style of their
principal and the teachers’ self-perceived overall job satisfaction?
Is one leadership style over another (transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire) more likely to improve teacher job satisfaction?
The hypothesis for this study was that teachers will report higher job satisfaction when
they have a leader who is either transformational or transactional than when they have a leader
who utilizes laissez-faire leadership. Likewise, the null hypothesis was that there would be no
difference in reported job satisfaction and the different types of leadership styles.
Theoretical Foundation
The theoretical framework for this study requires an understanding of the commonly
accepted leadership styles which are transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. There are
a number of studies from a variety of cultural contexts and settings that have investigated the
conceptual framework of the different leadership styles (Dinham & Scott, 2000) and have found
that leaders will mostly likely predominately fall within one of these three types while still

Page 71
60
exhibiting characteristics from each type. Leadership style affects followers’ job satisfaction
(House, 1976) and the qualities of a leader often times are determined by the culture and context
of the organization in which one leads (Al-Omari, 2008). The personal abilities of a leader
usually determine a specific style for the leader, which may create a positive picture of the leader
among the subordinates (Amin, Shah, & Tatlah, 2013).
Leaders who utilize the transformational leadership style motivate subordinates to
achieve higher levels of performance expectations, promote new approaches to solve problems,
and encourage change while ensuring the team maintains a shared vision (Bass, 1985; Bass &
Avolio, 2000). The key to transformational leadership is the use of motivation and
encouragement. Under this theory, subordinates are more likely to meet expectations at a
satisfactory level or higher if they feel inspired or encouraged to do so. Subordinates, then,
comply with leaders’ demands based on the intrinsic factor of personal motivation (Evans &
Johnson, 1990).
Transactional leadership is based on the idea of a give and take relationship. The leader
and subordinates decide on the procedure of attaining objectives by means of exchange of
rewards and the use of coercion to acquire the subordinate’s compliance (Bass, 1985). The
transactional image of leadership refers to give-and-take relationships between leaders and their
followers where each enters the transaction because of the expectation to fulfill self-interests
(Bogler, 2001). This leadership theory relies heavily on the use of extrinsic factors, such as, the
receiving of some type of reward or the aversion of a negative consequence (Evans & Johnson,
1990).
In contrast to transformational or transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership is
characterized as non-leadership or the absence of leadership (Amin et al., 2013). In this type of
 Page 72
61
leadership style, there is very limited interaction between the leader and his or her followers
(Bass, 1990). These leaders fail to take care of the needs and developments of an organization
and the subordinates, thus, continue as they have always done with little to no change (Aydin,
Sarier, & Uysal, 2013). A leader who uses laissez-faire leadership is less likely to give attention
to the subordinates or assist in fulfilling their needs (Avolio, 1999).
Limitations
Like all research, this study has certain limitations. First, this particular study was
conducted with participants who were all teachers working for one school district and did not
represent a comprehensive look at all teachers across the nation. With regard to the
generalizability of the sample, the present study intentionally used a relatively small sample size
of only 228 teachers. There have been a number of studies from a variety of cultural contexts
and settings that have investigated the relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction
(Amin et al., 2013); however, this particular study looked specifically at the relationship between
the leadership style of principals and teachers with a minimum of one year teaching experience.
This was done to begin investigating a specific combination of people (teachers and principals)
in order to add to the plethora of research done for various other types of situations. It should be
noted that because the sample used for this study was from a single school district in a small
county of East Tennessee the sample size was rather small and any attempt to generalize the
findings or conclusions to the whole population of all teachers should be approached with
caution.
Secondly, as noted, the sample came from only one school district with a small
population in a rural community. The working dynamics of inner city schools, private schools,
larger schools, or more affluent schools are likely to be different than the dynamics of a small

Page 73
62
school district, in a rural community with a high amount of low-socioeconomic students. Future
research for this topic, in addition to having a larger sample size, should also focus on gathering
data from different types of school districts.
Because the sample was chosen from the teachers in a small community, a third
limitation of this study exists. A fundamental limitation to measuring perceived leadership skills
of principals in relationship to the subordinates’ job satisfaction is the prior relationship between
the leader and his or her followers. For example, if an administrator and a teacher were friends
outside of the work place or prior to the principal accepting the leadership position, then the
teacher may have a higher opinion of the leader. The relationship prior to the leader –
subordinate relationship may have a positive impact on the perception of the leader’s abilities
(Klassen & Anderson, 2009). In a small community, where most people have likely grown up
together, this is sometimes the case. In the school district used for this study the rural setting has
caused generations of families to be raised in the community without many people moving away
from or into the community. As a result, some of the teachers were friends with their principals
prior to the principal accepting the leadership position. In fact, some of the teachers grew up and
attended school with people who are now in leadership positions over them. This is a limitation
to the study because the external variable of established relationships may play a part in opinions
given by the respondents. In all cases for this study, however, if a principal had been a teacher
and then was promoted to the position of administrator, he or she was moved to a different
school and was not permitted to be a principal where he or she had previously been a teacher.
Finally, this study demonstrates that the teachers’ perceptions of their principals
contribute to the teachers’ overall job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The data collected was
about perceptions only and it should be noted that the teachers’ perceptions are subjective. As

Page 74
63
pointed out previously, other variables can affect job satisfaction in addition to leadership style
of the principal and the other variables were not examined for purposes of this study. It also is
important to note that the context within which an administrator makes decisions and executes
his or her leadership style may change from one situation to the next or even one person to the
next (Bogler, 2001). A study which accounts for extraneous variables on job satisfaction and
uses different instruments to look at actual, rather than perceived, leadership style would be
prudent for further consideration on this topic.
Discussion and Implications of Findings
It is important to understand what leads to teacher job satisfaction or dissatisfaction
because many teachers leave the field of teaching to pursue other career choices stating low job
satisfaction as a reason for their departure (Ingersoll, 2002). Teacher attrition is damaging
school districts across America and has a negative effect on student academic success (Alliance
for Excellent Education, 2008). It is imperative to learn what effects job satisfaction and make
diligent improvements on teachers’ overall job satisfaction in order to ensure that highly
qualified teachers remain in the classroom, educating our future generations. The results of this
study indicate there is a positive relationship between principals’ leadership styles and teachers
overall job satisfaction. Teachers are more likely to be satisfied with their job when they
approve of their principal’s leadership style. The findings of this study add to the available
knowledge of other factors that influence job satisfaction such as classroom size, years of
teaching experience, and availability of resources to use in the classroom, to name a few.
Three leadership styles were investigated for purposes of this study. Transformational
leaders hold subordinates’ trust, maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, and
act as their role model (Bass, 1985). Additionally, transformational leaders may motivate their

Page 75
64
followers and provide intellectual stimulation for them which encourages change and growth in
the school system (Bass, 1990). Transactional leadership styles, on the other hand, utilize the
power of rewards and coercion to illicit employee compliance with the established goals (Bass,
1985). This can be done either immediately as soon as an employee disregards the expectations
or later once the decline of the employee’s job performance is noticed (Bass, 1990). The third
leadership style investigated was laissez-faire leadership, which is essentially the lack of
leadership because the leader is content to allow the status quo to continue without initiating
change allowing employees to do as they have always done (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985).
This study found that leadership style does influence teachers’ level of job satisfaction,
along with many other factors reviewed previously. In addition, a deeper look at the research
indicates that transformational, relative to transactional and laissez-faire, is the leadership style
that is most preferred by teachers as this correlation was statistically significant. The data
showed a positive and significant correlation between transformational leaders and teachers’
overall job satisfaction. The implication from this finding is that care should be taken when
hiring principals in order to ensure their leadership style will promote job satisfaction for
teachers. There was a negative correlation between transactional leadership style and teacher job
satisfaction, although this was not significant, the underlying assumption is that teachers are not
as satisfied with their jobs when principals use only rewards or coercion to ensure teachers are
doing their jobs. Surprisingly, laissez-faire characteristic leadership styles in this study had a
positive, although insignificant, correlation to teachers’ overall job satisfaction. Leadership style
affects followers’ job satisfaction (House, 1976) and the qualities of a leader often times are
determined by the culture and context of the organization in which one leads (Al-Omari, 2008).
The personal abilities of a leader usually determine a specific style for the leader, which may

Page 76
65
create a positive picture of the leader among the subordinates (Amin, Shah, & Tatlah, 2013).
Leadership style can change as the situations change.
Personal insights to the quantitative data were given through information gathered from
interviewing three teachers. Teachers reported the qualities of the principal they admire most
and that encourage their respect is that the principal acts as a role model for the school by
highlighting the areas of strengths of the teachers and the students. Although carried out in
different ways in the different schools, the teachers interviewed agree that this is essential to
improving their job satisfaction because it shows the principal is connected to the happenings of
the school and is dedicated to helping them achieve their goals. This is a form of transactional
leadership. When asked about rewards or coercion techniques used, a response of transactional
leadership style, the teachers were quick to point out that although this is a part of any job
experience, they appreciate the fact that it is done privately at their schools. They explained that
teacher observations are done frequently and then private meetings are held between the teacher
evaluated and the principal following each observation. During these meetings, the principal
outlines what was done well and where areas of needed improvement exist. All teachers receive
these frequent informal observations, whether needed or not, so that teachers who are not
meeting job performance expectations have time to correct their teaching practice prior to the
formal evaluations. Teachers, therefore, are given a private opportunity to correct their sub-par
performance and are not criticized publically in front of their colleagues. This leads to higher job
satisfaction because the teachers feel they are supported by the administration and not in an
environment where only negative behavior is capitalized on for purposes of disciplinary action.
The laissez-faire characteristics of the principals leadership style was seen as a positive influence
on the teachers’ job satisfaction, according to the interviews. The teachers agreed that not

Page 77
66
forcing change immediately when new constraints and demands are required allows for teachers
to adapt as needed to meet the new requirements. This is a laissez-faire approach because this
leadership style is content to allow things to go on as they have always been without the need for
pushing change (Bass, 1990).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between perceived principal leadership styles and
teachers’ self-reported overall job satisfaction does exist; however it varies in its degree of
importance with reference to the different aspects of the different styles. The interplay between
teachers’ job satisfaction and the leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire) used is defined by the schools’ existing climate and culture. Different situations that arise
may require the principal to adapt his or her leadership style in order to meet the demands of the
requirements. In order to add another layer of job satisfaction to teachers, it is therefore,
imperative to consider the leadership style of the principal leading the school.
Recommendations for Future Research
For future research on the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and principal
leadership styles several recommendations are suggested. This study acknowledged through a
comprehensive literature review that many variables have already been investigated that affect
job satisfaction such as working conditions, pay and benefits, class size, gender of teacher, and
other outside factors. Future studies should investigate the concept of teachers’ job satisfaction
by accounting for the many different variables associated with job satisfaction and specifically
those variables connected to leadership styles of principals. The present study only investigated
the relationship between overall job satisfaction and the three leadership styles of
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. Knowing that there is a significant relationship

Page 78
67
between leadership style and job satisfaction based on this research, future research could take a
deeper look at more specifically at the various levels of each type of leadership.
Transformational leadership has four sub-factors (idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration), while transactional leadership has two
sub-factors (contingent reward, and management-by-exception) (Avolio, 1999; Avolio & Bass,
1991; Avolio, Bass, & Jung 1999). Future research would be prudent to investigate these sub-
factors for a deeper understanding of correlation between leadership styles and job satisfaction.
Secondly, additional research is needed with a larger samples size in order to ensure that
the sample is representative of the whole population of teachers. A larger sample size, producing
the same results, would add validity to the present study. Third, future research for this topic, in
addition to having a larger sample size, should also focus on gathering data from different types
of school districts. Al-Omari (2008) found that the leadership style that leaders in an institution
choose to exercise is reinforced by the culture and context of that institution. Therefore, similar
data collected from inner city schools, for example, may have different results than the present
study. Because of the nature of working in an inner city school the principal may have to lead
the school differently than the principals in the county school used for the current study.
Likewise, a more affluent school with greater financial means of supporting the needs of teachers
may show different results than the current study in terms of leadership style because the leaders
at the affluent school have greater ability to provide necessary supplies and tools for the teachers
and this could raise teacher job satisfaction. Fourth, by using different data collection
instruments that would that require teachers and principals to answer questions that would
indicate actual leadership styles, as opposed to perceived leadership styles, the information
gathered would be less subjective and would uphold stronger statistical analysis. Finally, the

Page 79
68
demographics of the teachers other than gender were not collected or used in this study.
Completing a study using demographic information for teachers to determine if the years of
teaching experience or level of education obtained impacted the level of job satisfaction for
teachers would be beneficial.
These suggested next steps in this line of research are especially valuable today because
teachers have a job that affects future societies. Presently, teachers are leaving the teaching
profession in high numbers to pursue careers outside of education stating low job satisfaction as
a main cause for their decision. Discovering the variables that affect teacher job satisfaction and
improving those variables would cause the field of education to be strengthened so that students
have effective and optimal learning experiences while in school.

Page 80
69
References
Abbey, D. E., & Esposito, J. P. (2001). Social support and principal leadership style: A means
to reduce teacher stress. Education, 105(3), 327-332.
Abd-El-Fattah, S. M. (2010). Longitudinal effects of pay increase on teachers’ job satisfaction:
A motivational perspective. The Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 11-21.
Abu-Taleb, T. F. (2013). Job satisfaction among Jordan’s kindergarten teachers: Effects of
workplace conditions and demographic characteristics. Early Childhood Education, 41,
143 – 152.
Agho, A. O., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction:
An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46(8), 1007 – 1027.
Akkaya, R., & Akyol, B. (2016). The relationship between teachers’ locus of control and job
satisfaction: A mixed method study. International Online Journal of Educational
Sciences, 8(3), 71 – 82.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and
states. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/Teacher Attrition.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2008). What keeps good teachers in the classroom?
Understanding and reducing teacher reduction. Retrieved from
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/TeachTurn.pdf
Al-Omari, A. (2008). The relationship between leadership styles of Hashemite University
department chairs and job satisfaction as reported by department faculty members.
University of Sharjah Journal for Humanities & Social Sciences, 5(2), 101 – 124.

Page 81
70
Amin, M., Shah, S., & Tatlah, I. A. (2013). Impact of principals/directors’ leadership styles on
job satisfaction of the faculty members: Perceptions of the faculty members in a public
university of Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 7(2),
97 – 112.
Anderson, A., Sharad, G., Gregory, H., Neil, M., & Duncan, J. W. (2014). Political ideology and
racial preferences in online dating. Sociological Science, 1, 28 – 40.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261 – 295.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to research in
education (9
th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1991). The full-range of leadership development. Binghamton, NY:
Center for Leadership Studies.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire:
Technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. J. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441 –
462.

Page 82
71
Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2013). The effect of school principals’ leadership styles on
teachers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Educational Sciences Theory
and Practice, 13(2), 806 – 811.
Baran, M., Maskan, A., & Baran, M. (2015). Physics, chemistry, and biology teachers’ reasons
for choosing the profession of teaching and their levels of job satisfaction with respect to
certain variables. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(3), 101 – 110.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19 – 31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Platoon Readiness as a Function of Leadership, Platoon
and Company Cultures: Final Report. Washington: U.S. Army Research Institute for
the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership  (2
nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Billingsley, B., Israel, M., & Smith, S. (2011). Supporting new special education teachers.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 20 29.
Bishay, A. (1996). Teacher motivation and career satisfaction: A study employing the
experienced sampling method. Psychology Journal of Undergraduate Science, 3, 147 –
154.

Page 83
72
Blasé, J., & Kirby, P. C. (1992). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662 – 683.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership.  New York: Harper and Row.
Burns, J. M (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. New York: Atlantic
Monthly Press.
Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Using policy to improve teacher induction: Critical
elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23(2), 295 – 328.
doi:10.1177/0895904807310036
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. (6
th
ed.).
London: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research  (2
nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Crossman, A., & Harris, P. (2006). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Educational
Management, Administration, and Leadership, 34, 29 - 46.
Dabo, A. (1998). The study of workers values and its implication to administration in the 21
st
Century: A case study of college of education. Forum Academia, 6, 112 – 124.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in teaching.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publications.
Dastoor, B., Suwannachin, K., & Golding, A. (2003). Transformational leadership and cultural
values in Thailand: Faculty perceptions of university administrators. Clearwater:
Academy of International Business Southeast.

Page 84
73
Delgado, M. (1999). Lifesaving 101: How a veteran teacher can help a beginner. Educational
Leadership, 56(8), 27 – 29.
DiClemente, R. K., Ditrinco, E. A., Gibbons, K. E., & Myers, S. A. (2013). The relationship
between instructor job satisfaction and communicator style and socio-communicative
orientation. Communication Research Reports, 30(4), 347 – 351.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model for teacher and school executive career
satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 362 – 378.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third outer domain of teacher satisfaction.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 379 – 396.
Evans, L. (2001). Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction, and motivation among education
professionals. Educational Management and Administration, 29(3), 291 – 306.
Evans, V., & Johnson, D. J. (1990). The relationship of principals’ leadership behavior and
teachers’ job satisfaction and job-related stress. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
17(1), 11 – 18.
Frankenberg, E. (2006). The segregation of American teachers.  Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights
Project at Harvard University.
French, M., Sumsion, J., Robertson, G., & Goodfellow, J. (2008). The regulatory environment:
A source of job (dis)satisfaction for early childhood professional? Early Child
Development and Care, 178, 1-14.
Gay, G. (1995). Modeling and mentoring in urban teacher preparation. Education and Urban
Society, 28(1), 103 – 118.
Gaziel, H. H. (2014). The effect of the school organization on teachers’ efficacy and
satisfaction. Education Policy, Reforms, and School Leadership, 12, 281 – 288.
 Page 85
74
Gius, M. (2012). Using a difference-in-differences approach to estimate the effects of teacher
merit pay on student performance. Eastern Economic Journal, 39(1), 111 – 120.
Gius, M. (2013). The effects of merit pay on teacher job satisfaction. Applied Economics,
45(31), 4407 – 4415.
Gius, M. (2015). A comparison of teacher job satisfaction in public and private schools.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3), 155 – 164.
Gosnell, S. (2000). Determinant of career satisfaction among federal employees. Paper
presented at the seminar on public policy. Georgia Institute of Technology., Georgia,
USA.
Green, A. M., & Munoz, M. A. (2016). Predictors of new teacher satisfaction in urban schools:
Effects of personal characteristics, general job facets, and teacher-specific job facets.
Journal of School Leadership, 26(1), 92 – 123.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal
of Human Resources,  39, 326 – 354.
Heller, H. W., Clay, R., & Perkins, C. (1993). The relationship between teacher job satisfaction
and principal leadership style. Journal of School Leadership, 3(1), 74 – 86.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man.  New York, NY: World Publishing.
Heywood, J., Siebert, W., & Wei, X. (2002). Job satisfaction and worker sorting: The case of
Union and Government jobs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(4), 595 – 609.
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. Leadership: The Cutting Edge.  A
Symposium Held at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 189 – 207. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.

Page 86
75
Howell, J.P., & Costley, D.L. (2001). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership. NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ilgan, A., Parylo, O., & Sungu, H. (2015). Predicting teacher job satisfaction based on
principals’ instructional supervision behaviors: A study of Turkish teachers. Irish
Educational Studies, 34(1), 69 – 88.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription.
National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 86(631), 16 – 31.
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 30 – 33.
Ingram, P. D. (1997). Leadership behaviors of principals in inclusive educational settings.
Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5), 411 – 427.
Katz, R. (2004). The human side of managing technological innovations  (2
nd
ed.). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Development and support of online teachers: The role of
mentors in virtual schools. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 2, 37 –
42.
Khanna, M. (2010). A comparative study of leadership behavior of principals in relation to job
satisfaction of teachers in government and non-government schools of U.T., Chandigarh
(India). Academic Leadership, 8(3), 1 – 3.
Kim, S., & Yang, S. (2016). Childcare teachers’ job satisfaction: Effects of personality, conflict
handling, and organizational characteristics. Social, Behavior, and Personality: An
International Journal, 44(2), 177 – 184.

Page 87
76
Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & King. M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education:
Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 303
– 311.
Klassen, R. M., & Anderson, C. J. K., (2009). How times change: Secondary teachers’ job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction in 1962 and 2007. British Educational Research Journal,
35(5), 745 – 759.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership
on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(4), 319 – 333.
Korkmaz, M. (2007). Effects of leadership styles on organizational health. Educational
Administration: Theory and Practice, 49, 81 – 91.
Kottkamp, R. B., Mulhern, J. A., & Hoy, K. (1987). Secondary school climate: A revision of
the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(3), 31 – 48.
Larkin, I. M., Brantley-Dias, L., & Lokey-Vega, A. (2016). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and turnover intention of online teachers in the K-12 setting. Online
Learning, 20(3), 26 – 51.
Leary, P. A., Sullivan, M. E., & Ray, D. A. (1999). The relationship of leadership styles of
selected West Virginia deans and department chairs to job satisfaction of departmental
faculty members. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision, 16(4),
33 – 41.
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communications, 45(1), 61 – 78.

Page 88
77
Maehr, M. L. & Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor: a theory of personal
investment. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
Massari, G. A. (2015). Key factors of preschool and primary school teachers job satisfaction.
PedActa, 5(1), 27 – 40.
MetLife Foundation. (2012). The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Teachers, parents,
and the economy. MetLife, Inc. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530021.pdf
Michaelowa, K. (2002). Teacher career satisfaction, student achievement, and the cost of
primary education in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa. Hamburg: Institute of
International Economics.
Mohrman, A. M., Cooke, R. S., Mohrman, S. A., Duncan, R. B., & Zaltman, G. (1977). An
assessment of a structure task approach to organizational development of a school
system.  Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Mohrman, A. M., Cooke, R. A., & Mohrman, S. A. (1978). Participation in decision making: A
multidimensional approach. Education Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 13 – 29.
Mwamwenda, T. S. (1997). Occupational stress among secretarial personnel at the University of
Transkei. Psychological Reports, 81, 418.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1997). Doing what matters most:
Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/
DoingWhatMattersMost.pdf

Page 89
78
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2007). Policy brief: The high cost
of teacher turnover. Washington: National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-Cost-of-
Teacher-Turnover-2007-policy-brief.pdf
Newstrom, J.W., & Davis, K. (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (5
th
ed.) London: Sage.
Paris, L. (2013). Reciprocal mentoring: Can it help prevent attrition for beginning teachers?
Australian Journal of Education, 36(6), 136 – 158.
Perie, M., & Baker, D. P. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s teachers: Effects of
workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 181o. Document Number)
Poppleton, P., & Riseborough, G. (1991). A profession in transition: Educational policy and
secondary school teaching in England in the 1980s. Comparative Education Review, 26,
211 – 226.
Rowden, R. W., & Conine, C., Jr. (2005). The impact of workplace learning on job satisfaction
in small US commercial banks. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(3), 215 – 230.
Rowold, J., & Scholtz, W. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership and followers’
chronic stress, Kravis leadership institute. Leadership Review, 9(2), 35 – 48.
Saeed, R., Azizollah, A., Zahra, A., Abdolghayoum, N., Zaman, A., & Peyman, Y. (2011).
Effect of female principal’s management styles on teacher’s job satisfaction in Isfahan-
Iran girls high schools. International Education Studies, 4(3), 124 – 132.

Page 90
79
Sargent, T., & Hannum, E. (2003). Keeping teachers happy: Career satisfaction among
primary school teachers in rural China. Paper presented at the International Association
Research Committee on Social Satisfaction and Mobility. New York.
Sarri, L. M., & Judge, T. A., (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43(4), 395 – 407.
Schlechty, P., & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, selection, and retention: The shape of the
teaching force. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 468 – 487.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2
nd
ed.). New
York, NY: Harper and row.
Shahin, A. I., & Wright, P. L. (2004). Leadership in the context of culture. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 25(6), 499 – 511.
Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle
schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 67 – 73.
Silins, H. C. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 38(4), 317 – 334.
Sillins, H. C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and
school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 53(3),
272 – 298.
Spear, M., Gould, K., & Lee, B. (2000). Who would be a teacher? A review of factors
motivating and demotivating prospective and practicing teachers. Slough: National
Foundation for Educational Research.

Page 91
80
Sungu, H., Ilgan, A., Parylo, O., & Erdem, M. (2014). Examining teacher job satisfaction and
principals’ instructional supervision behaviors: A comparative study of Turkish private
and public school teachers. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(1), 98 – 118.
Sylvia, R. D., & Hutchinson, T. (1985). What makes Ms. Johnson teach? A study of teacher
motivation. Human Relations, 38, 841 – 856.
Tasdan, M. (2008). The congruence level between personal values of teachers and
organizational values of schools in public and private schools in Turkey, its relation with
job satisfaction and perceived social support. Ankara: Ankara University.
Theodory, G. C. (1981a). Principals’ experience and teachers’ satisfaction in Lebanese
secondary schools. Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 7 – 10.
Theodory, G. C. (1981b). The effect of the least preferred co-worker measure on school
outcomes in Lebanon’s educational system. Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 3 – 6.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Quick Facts, Union County Tennessee. United States Census
Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/47173
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Partnerships for reform: Changing teacher preparation
through the title I HEA partnership program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/title2hea/
changing-teacher-prep- final.pdf.
Vierstraete, S. (2005). Mentorship: Toward success in teacher induction and retention. Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 8(3), 381 – 392.
Wilkinson, A. D., & Wagner, R. M. (1993). Supervisory style and state vocational
rehabilitation, counselor job satisfaction and productivity. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 37(1), 15 – 24.

Page 92
81
Wortmann, K., Cavanaugh, C., Kennedy, K., Beldarrain, Y., Letourneau, T., & Zygouris-Coe, V.
(2008). Online teacher support programs: Mentoring and coaching models. North
American Council for Online Learning.  Vienna, VA. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/wp-ontent/uploads/2015/02/NACOL_OnlineTeacher
SupportPrograms_2008.pdf
Wren, D. A. (1994). The evolution of management thought (4
th
ed.). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.

Page 93
82
Appendices

Page 94
83
Appendix A: Study Participation Informed Consent

Page 95
84
Appendix A: Study Participation Informed Consent
Dear Colleague/Volunteer:
I am a student at Carson-Newman University working on an education doctoral degree in
Administrative Leadership. I am conducting research entitled “The Relationship Between
Teacher Job Satisfaction and Principal Leadership Styles.” The purpose of the research study is
to examine the teachers’ perception of their principals’ leadership style and how it is related to
their self-reported job satisfaction in this school district.
I would like to invite you to participate in this study. It may take approximately 10-20 minutes
of your time to complete the attached two surveys.
Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to
withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without any further obligation, penalty, or
adversely affecting your relationship with me, your school, or your administrator. All survey
responses are anonymous and will be kept confidential. No identifying information will be
collected that can connect you to your survey responses. The results of the research may be
published, but no individual’s identity will be used or recognized.
Participation in this study has no foreseeable risks to you. Although there may be no direct
benefit to you, this research has the capability to help your school to discover how its leadership
practices and beliefs impact the different ways in which teachers function within your school.
Your participation in this research will also help to expand the body of knowledge of leadership
theories as related to job satisfaction for teachers.
You may ask questions about the research study before agreeing to participate or following
completion of the study if needed. Please feel free to contact me at (865) 309-4936. If you have
questions concerning your rights as a research subject that have not been answered by me, or
would like to report any concerns about this study, you may contact Carson-Newman University
at (865) 471-2000.
By completing the two attached surveys, you are consenting to voluntarily participate in this
study as described. You acknowledge and understand the nature of the study and the potential
risks to you as the participant. There are no other agreements, written or verbal, related to this
study beyond that expressed in this informed consent letter.
Thank you in advance for your time and willingness to participate.
Sincerely,
Gwendolin Schwartz
 Page 96
85
Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form

Page 97
86
Appendix B: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form
Instructions:
This survey will help you describe the leadership style of a person [your school principal] you
have been asked to rate. Starting with the first question, judge how frequently each statement fits
that person. Twenty-one descriptive phrases are listed below. Please do not skip questions or
leave answers blank. Use the rating scale below.
KEY
0 = Not at all 1= Once in a while 2 = Sometimes 3 = Fairly Often 4 = Frequently, if not always
To the best of your knowledge, your principal:
1. makes others feel good to be around him/her ………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
2. expresses with a few simple words what the team could and should do …………...0 1 2 3 4
3. enables others to think about old problems in new ways ……………………..…….0 1 2 3 4
4. helps others develop themselves …………………………………………………....0 1 2 3 4
5. tells others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work …………………0 1 2 3 4
6. seems satisfied when others meet agreed-upon standards ………………………….0 1 2 3 4
7. is content to let others continue working in the same ways as always ……………..0 1 2 3 4
8. has the complete faith of others working for him/her……………………………….0 1 2 3 4
9. provides appealing images about what the team can do ……………………………0 1 2 3 4
10. provides others with new ways of looking at puzzling things ………………….…0 1 2 3 4
11. provides feedback to others about how he/she feels they are doing ………………0 1 2 3 4
12. provides recognition/rewards when others reach their goals ……………………...0 1 2 3 4
13. does not try to change anything as long as things are working …………………...0 1 2 3 4
14. is OK with whatever others want to do ………………………………………........0 1 2 3 4
15. has followers who are proud to be associated with him/her ………………………0 1 2 3 4
16. helps others find meaning in their work…………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
17. gets others to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before ……………….0 1 2 3 4
18. gives personal attention to others who seem rejected …………………………..…0 1 2 3 4
19. calls attention to what others can get for what they accomplish …………………..0 1 2 3 4
20. tells others the standards they have to know to carry out their work ……………...0 1 2 3 4
21. asks no more of others than what is absolutely essential ……………………….....0 1 2 3 4

Page 98
87
Scoring:
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire measures a broad range of leadership types from
passive leaders, to leaders who give contingent rewards to followers, to leaders who transform
their followers into becoming leaders themselves using seven factors. The score for each factor
is determined by summing three specified items on the questionnaire. For example, to determine
the score for factor 1, idealized influence, sum your responses for items 1, 8, and 15. Complete
this procedure for all seven factors.
TOTAL
Idealized influence (items 1, 8, and 15)
__________ Factor 1
Inspirational motivation (items 2, 9, and 16)
__________ Factor 2
Intellectual stimulation (items 3, 10, and 17)
__________ Factor 3
Individual consideration (items 4, 11, and 18)
__________ Factor 4
Contingent reward (items 5, 12, and 19)
__________ Factor 5
Management-by-exception (items 6, 13, and 20)
__________ Factor 6
Laissez-faire leadership (items 7, 14, and 21)
__________ Factor 7
Score range for transformational leadership: High = 9-12, Moderate = 5-8, Low = 0-4

Page 99
88
SCORING INTERPRETATION
Factor 1 – IDEALIZED INFLUENCE indicates whether the leader holds subordinates’ trust,
maintains their faith and respect, shows dedication to them, appeals to their hopes and dreams,
and acts as their role model.
Factor 2 – INSPIRATIONAL MOTIVATION measures the degree to which the leader provides
vision, uses appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and attires to
make others feel their work is significant.
Factor 3 – INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION shows the degree to which the leader encourages
others to be creative in looking at old problems in new ways, creates an environment that is
tolerant of seemingly extreme positions, and nurtures people to question their own values and
beliefs and those of the organization
Factor 4 – INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION indicates the degree to which the leader
shows interest in others’ well-being, assigns projects individually, and pays attention to those
who seem less involved in the group.
Factor 5 – CONTINGENT REWARD shows the degree to which the leader tells others what to
do in order to be rewarded, emphasizes what is expected from others, and recognizes others’
accomplishments.
Factor 6 – MANAGEMENT-BY-EXCEPTION assesses whether the leader tells others the job
requirements, is content with standard performance, and is a believer in “if it isn’t broke, don’t
fix it.”
Factor 7 – LAISSEZ-FAIRE measures whether the leader requires little of others, is content to
let things ride, and allows others to do their own thing.

Page 100
89
Appendix C: Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS)

Page 101
90
Appendix C: Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS)
Instructions:
The following is a list of items on the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (1978).
Consider each statement based on your perception of the item in your school. Please respond by
circling the appropriate number for scaled response. Indicate your level of satisfaction with
various facets of your job by selecting one number on the six-point scale after each statement.
The scale ranges from 1 = low to 6 = high.
Intrinsic Satisfaction
Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 High
1
The feeling of self-esteem or self-respect you get from
being in your job
123456
2
The opportunity for personal growth development in your
job
123456
3 The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment in your job
123456
4
Your present job when you consider the expectations you
had when you took the job
123456
Extrinsic Satisfaction
Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 High
5
The amount of respect and fair treatment you receive from
your supervisors
123456
6 The feeling of being informed in your job
123456
7 The amount of supervision you receive
123456
8
The opportunity for participation in the determination of
methods, procedures, and goals
123456
Developed by Allan M. Mohrman, Jr. Robert A. Cooke, and Susan Albers Mohrman (1977)

Page 102
91
Appendix D: Teacher Interview Questions

Page 103
92
Appendix D: Teacher Interview Questions
The following questions were presented to select teachers during an informal discussion
about their job satisfaction as it relates to the leadership style of their principal.
1) What qualities of your principal do you admire that encourages you to respect his or her
leadership?
2) In what ways does your principal motivate you to be successful at your job?
3) How is pressure applied to people who do not meet job performance expectations in order to
ensure compliance with the schools’ goals?
4) In what ways does your principal obtain the full involvement of the teachers for projects?
5) What specifically does your principal do that affects your overall level of job satisfaction?