Pakistan Journal of Social Research

ISSN 2710-3129 (P) 2710-3137 (O)

Vol. 4, No. 2, April-June 2022, pp. 306-317.
www.pjsr.com.pk

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND EMPLOYEE RETENTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

SECTOR OF PAKISTAN

Sobia Iqbal
Assistant Professor: Department of Management Science DHA Suffa University
sobia.iqbal@dsu.edu.pk
Muhammad Waqas
Senior Lecturer: Department of Management Science DHA Suffa University
Burhan Sami
PhD Scholar: Department of Management Science DHA Suffa University
ABSTRACT
Creativity at the workplace is a key factor that enables organizational growth and development, there better
leadership skill is crucial for creating an environment for raising a creative workplace. This study
empirically analyzes the leadership styles adopted in the Higher Education Sector of Pakistan and their
impact on the retention of employees, incorporating transactional leadership, transformational leadership,
and innovative environment as independent variables, and employee retention as the dependent variables.
Further, this study assimilated the role of diversity on employee retention as moderators considering it
elements. From the diversity context, this study mainly relies on demographic information only and
discusses the moderating impact of gender of respondent, gender of supervisor, education level, and
employment status as a model to interpret the impact. For the empirical analysis of the study the digital
questionnaire has been distributed and received 411 respondents from the Higher Education Sector. SPSS
has been used for the analysis. The studies concluded that transformational leadership is significant in the
Higher Education Sector of Pakistan and all the four factors of diversity are not moderating in this set of
data.
Keywords: Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative environment,
Diversity.
Gel Classifications: M14, L14, I23
1. INTRODUCTION
The role of leadership is a complex phenomenon as it involves many factors along with different stages of
control and operational analysis (E.Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, & Liden, 2018). Leadership is the core
part of management, and its importance cannot be ignored. The skills of a leader are considered as the
necessary element in the success and setback of a firm. Therefore, the success or setback of an organization
generally identifies as a success or failure of leadership. A leader has enormous leverage on the success of
an organization.
The issue of leadership has become the focus of interest for researchers. Creativity climate
development is stated as to provide the circumstances for people to generate new ideas regarding new
challenges and opportunities which are being faced. The scope of this particular study is focused for the
teaching faculty of the Higher Education Sector of Pakistan. It targets to identify the influence of leadership
style on Employee Retention in the Higher Education Sector. In the modern era, creativity has a dominant
impact on any organization’s success. Creativity at the workplace is a key factor that enables organizational
growth and development. Better leadership skill is therefore necessary for creating such a climate for raising
a creative workplace. There is no unanimously agreed ‘the most suitable style’ of leadership style (Bolman
& Deal, 2008). There are many leadership styles adopted by Higher Educational Institutes around the globe,
but researches supports to the transformational leadership style as most effective one in this sector (Aguirre
& Martinez, 2006). Similar the results concluded by the study of (Kezar & Eckel, 2008) reported that
transformational, transactional, and laissez fair are effective in different scenarios in Higher Educational

306
 Iqbal, Waqas, & Sami

Institutes which are focusing on diversity agenda. The literature for diversity supports that diversity
leadership is the master of all leadership styles (Bolman & Deal, 2008). It has been reported that structural,
political and symbolic frames are best leadership flairs (Birnbaum, 1988). Collegial leadership frame is
reported by (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). The role of leadership in Mexican universities have been
analyzed by five factors of leadership that is strategist, legitimator, politician, motivator, and communicator
and all these are components of transformational leadership (Badillo-Vega & Espinosa, 2020). The study
concluded that transformational leadership is playing a dynamic role in the development of the Higher
Educational Institutes of Mexico. The literature from leadership style perspective in Higher Education,
finds many related studies in support of transformational leadership to develop the Higher Education Sector.
In this study the focus is on the two major leadership adopted styles in Higher Educational Institutes in
Pakistan. It engrossed on transformational and transactional leadership styles to draw a conclusion about
the research question that is intended to identify the relationship of leadership flair and diversity on
employee retention in the Higher Education Sector. An ongoing study analyzed the impression of leadership
flair diversity on employee retention in the Higher Education Sector. Previous studies are focusing on the
leadership style and employee retention and the effect of diversity on employee retention separately and to
the preeminent of the researcher’s awareness the current study is one of the very unique studies that discuss
diversity and leadership style on employee retention at the same time especially featuring Pakistan’s Higher
Education Sector.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Academic institutions like universities and colleges are distinctive in nature when it comes to decision
making process and are entirely different from the corporate sector or government department. In
universities, the academic work is managed around the intellectual activities of the professors which need
an entirely different mechanism of leadership. That will depend upon the implanted nature of university
and their Presidents/Vice Chancellors. In the process of analyzing university leadership the authorities need
to take care of national educational development along with international market requirements of the Higher
Education (Badillo-Vega, Georg, & Pedro, 2021).
Consisting on the following three factors:
A. Develops the visualization for the aims of the organization
B. Openly share the prophecy with the employs
C. Develop a clear long term strategy to achieve the organization goals
The study of (Jacobsen, Andersen, Bollingtoft, & Eriksen, 2021) concluded that the
transformational leadership is the behavior of the leader to progress, share and stand with visualization and
prophecy in order to stimulate the employees and make them understand the long term vision of the
organization. The notion of transformational leadership has progressively shifted towards the notion of
instructional leadership, as per the prospects of the academic arena for leaders to bring visionary leadership
tactics into the Higher Education Institutions (Leithwood & Jantzi, , 2019). The study concluded that
instructional leadership was appropriate in education sector of Malaysia during 1980s and 1990s. However,
the education sector had different experience in late 1990s. Referring to transformational leadership.
(Masduki Asbari & Novitasari, 2020) Has concluded that the success of a leader lies in their work and
incorporated varies mechanism to motivate and trigger their respective staff and they bring a positive
change in the Higher Educational culture of their institute. (Asbari, 2020) Reported that the leaders as well
as the follower inspires individuals to accomplish advanced level of morality and justice to the
responsibilities. Similar hypothesis was established by (Zaman, et al., 2020) in their research in which they
have concluded by structural equation model that the transformational leadership has significant positive
influence on employs performance specially during the covid-19 when everything face rapid change.
(Zaman, et al., 2020) Further they suggest that the transformational leadership is best style of leadership
when the system is facing the change. Whereas the transactional leadership refer to the compliance by
reward and punishments. Though this system is successful in short term but it is not effective in longer run
(Asbari, 2020). Indicate that transformational leadership develops a strong association among the leader

307
 Leadership Style and Employee Retention in Higher Education Sector of Pakistan

and follower although the transactional leadership does not develop the association among leader and
supporter as it is based on the reward and punishment (Purwanto, Asbari, & Santoso, 2019).
In case of Pakistan’s Higher Education Institute (Khan, Idris, & Amin, 2021) concluded in their
study that transactional and transformational leadership, both has optimistic and substantial impression on
employ performance in Higher Education Sector of the country they further enlighten the researcher that it
is the justice in the system which may create a difference in some organizations.
Every organization wants the long term engagement of their employees. Retaining old employ is
the success of any company as it will reduce the operational cost also it will enhance the productivity as old
employ know the rules and organizational culture better than if company hire new employs. (Winoto,
Tecoalu, & Wijaya, 2021) Have also conclude the compensation and supervisor support has positive and
significant impact on employee retention. In the similar study (Yasin, 2021) analyzed the association among
responsible leadership and employ turnover rate and he reported the results that there is a negative and
substantial relationship between the responsible leadership and employ turnover. From the above discussion
we may conclude that the leadership style plays a dynamic role in retention of employs.
Innovation is the unique process of value addition of any economic activity. It might be in the
operational activity or product development activity or at any stage if someone develop a unique procedure
to address the process it is consider as innovation. (Yamin, (2020) Analyzed the relationship between the
employ retention and innovation (the study use entrepreneurial orientation as proxy of innovation) and
concluded that the firms who gave more chances to their employs to experiment in a controlled way the
employs chances of retention increase.

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Transformational
Leadership

Diversity Employee Retention

Transactional Gender
Gender of supervisor
Leadership Education
Employment Status

Innovative Environment

4. METHODOLOGY
The selected study independent variables are transformational leadership; transactional leadership and
Innovative environment whereas the gender of respondent, gender of supervisor, employment status,
education of Higher Education Employees are the moderating variables and Employee Retention as the
dependent variable. As the study population is focused on the Higher Education Sector so the lecturer or
above at the university level has been considered as the sample. The sample size calculated by rasoft was
385 as the population size is large. The digital questionnaire was shared through different electronic and
digital media and the study received the response of 411 employees of the Higher Education Sector. The
purposive sampling technique has been adopted. Digital questionnaire (through google forms) has been
sent to all major universities of Pakistan to get the maximum response. SPSS package has been used for the
data analysis.

308
 Iqbal, Waqas, & Sami

5. ANALYSIS
5.1. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
This section of the study explains the empirical analysis of all the demographics of the survey.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Table No: 1

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percentage
Percentage Percentage

Male 186 45.3 45 45

Gender Female 225 54.7 55 100
Total 411 100 100
Lecturer 252 61.3 61 61
Assistant
72 17.5 18 79
Professor
Employee Associate
status 36 8.8 9 88
Professor
Professor 51 12.4 12 100
Total 411 100 100
Masters 252 61.3 61 61
Education PHD 159 38.7 39 100
Total 411 100 100
Male 233 56.7 57 57
Supervisor
Female 178 43.3 43 100
Gender
Total 411 100 100
Table No. 1 represents the descriptive analysis of the study as Gender demographic of respondents.
This data set reflects that 55% of the responses has been recorded from female educationists of the Higher
Education Sector whereas, 45% male participants has been reported for the study. With this statistics we
may conclude that the female point of view is dominant in this specific study. Similarly, the study may also
conclude that female gender is comparatively more participative in the development of research culture in
Higher Education than male.
Table no.1 also represents the employee status of the respondent of the study. It reflects that the
sample of this study consist of 61% Lecturers (252), 18% Assistant Professors (72), 9% Associate
Professors (36), and 12% Professors (51) of the Higher Education Sector. It also reflects that the Lecturer’s
point of view is more leading in the study as it signifies more than half of the entire sample. As lecturers
are the initial level employment position in the Higher Education Sector, the results may be different when
a balance sample might be collected for future studies.
As per the statistics of Table no.1, the Education Diversity of the sample, mirrors participant’s
qualification. It shows that 61% (252) participants of the study holds Master Degree and 39% (159)
participants holds Ph.D. degree.
Table no.1 also expresses the Gender of the Respondent’s Supervisor. It shows that out of 411
respondents 57% (233) are reported male supervision and 43% (178) female supervisors. From this statistic,
the study may mention that in Higher Education male supervisors are in the majority as compared to female
supervisors.

309
 Leadership Style and Employee Retention in Higher Education Sector of Pakistan

Since the demographics of this study is very much diversified, its diversification varies from the
Gender of Respondents/participants to the Gender of their respective Supervisors, Education level and
employment status, therefore it may be conclude that it is a well-defined survey that covers all relevant
demographics diversities of the Higher Education Sector.
5.2. Reliability Analysis
RELIABILITY STATISTICS
Table No. 2
Variables Cronbach's No of Items
Alpha
Transformational Leadership .727 7
Transactional Leadership .637 4
Employ Retention .668 8
Innovative environment .642 4
Table 2 shows that the data is valid for all variables as Cronbach’s Alpha meets the minimum limit
of reliability. As the innovative environment is our controlling (moderating) variable, in this case, the
controlling variable might not be effective.

CORRELATIONS
Table No. 3
Retention Pearson Employee Transformational Innovation Transactional
Correlation Retention Leadership Environment Leadership
1 -.011 .116* .500**
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The construct validity analysis of the study displays that correlation is significant between the
Employee Retention and Transactional leadership, Further, the Transformational Leadership and an
Innovative Environment are not significantly correlated with Employee Retention. With this evidence we
may conclude that in the Higher Educational Sector, the Transactional Leadership is significantly correlated
with the Employee Retention.
On the basis of Reliability and Validity Analysis, the study has been considered for backward
regression test to identify the significance of the model. Backward regression run three different models on
the bases of significance.
Variables Entered/Removeda
Table No. 4
Model Variables Entered Variables Method
Removed
Transactional Leadership, . Enter
1 Transformational Leadership,
Innovative Environmentb
. Innovative Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-
2
Environment remove >= .100).
. Transformational Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-
3
Leadership remove >= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
b. All requested variables entered.
Table no. 4 show the summary of the table and R2 illustrates that 25% of the variation in the
dependent variable is due to these independent variables. All three model shows that the variation in
dependent variable due to all independent variables is 25%.

310
 Iqbal, Waqas, & Sami

Model Summary
Table No. 5
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .502a .252 .247 .55264
2 .502b .252 .248 .55197
3 .500c .250 .248 .55216
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership
c. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership
Analysis of variance shows the overall fitness of the model. Table no. 5 demonstrates the significant
values of the F-ratio which implies that the model is fit to do the analysis and recommendation.

ANOVAa
Table No. 6
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 41.896 3 13.965 45.727 .000b
1 Residual 124.300 407 .305
Total 166.196 410
Regression 41.889 2 20.944 68.744 .000c
2 Residual 124.307 408 .305
Total 166.196 410
Regression 41.501 1 41.501 136.121 .000d
3 Residual 124.696 409 .305
Total 166.196 410
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership
d. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership
Backward regression results show that the model is fit for all three models as sig. value of the F-
Test is less than 0.05. The magnitude of the F-ratio of model three is higher among all so the study may
conclude that model three is more significant than others. For the final decision, the study needs to analyze
the independent effect of all variables. It also represents the independent impact of variables on the
dependent variables as only Transactional Leadership shows a substantial impact on Employee Retention.

Coefficientsa
Table No. 7
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
(Constant) 2.268 .200 11.348 .000
Transformational -.050 .047 -.052 -1.062 .289 .763 1.311
Leadership
1 Innovative .009 .056 .008 .155 .877 .713 1.403
Environment
Transactional .403 .036 .502 11.254 .000 .925 1.081
Leadership
2 (Constant) 2.281 .182 12.498 .000

311
 Leadership Style and Employee Retention in Higher Education Sector of Pakistan

Transformational -.046 .041 -.048 -1.129 .260 .994 1.006

Leadership
Transactional .405 .035 .503 11.723 .000 .994 1.006
Leadership
(Constant) 2.135 .129 16.593 .000
3 Transactional .402 .034 .500 11.667 .000 1.000 1.000
Leadership
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
5.3. Moderation Analysis
The study analyzed Gender, Education, Employment status, and Gender of Supervisor as moderating
Variable.
5.3.1. Gender as Moderator
Model Summary
Table No. 8
Gender Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
Male 1 .591a .350 .339 .51773
Female 1 .430a .185 .174 .57856
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table no. 8 displays a model summary of the gender, 18% R2 shows the variation in dependent
variable owed to all independent variables in female respondents and, 35% variation in dependent variable
owed to all independent variables in male respondents.
ANOVAa
Table No. 9
Gender Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 26.232 3 8.744 32.622 .000b
Male 1 Residual 48.784 182 .268
Total 75.017 185
Regression 16.760 3 5.587 16.690 .000b
Female 1 Residual 73.975 221 .335
Total 90.735 224
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table No. 9 represents that both models are acceptable and we may conclude that in the Higher
Education Sector, the gender aspect is not moderating in this sample. It also shows the individual impact of
variables in both the models. The study also conclude that only transactional leadership is significant in
both models therefore the impact of gender is not moderating in this case.
Coefficientsa
Table No. 10
Gender Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.966 .309 6.369 .000
Transformational -.063 .069 -.062 -.915 .361
Male 1 Leadership
Innovative Environment .046 .093 .036 .501 .617
Transactional Leadership .470 .052 .580 9.057 .000
Female 1 (Constant) 2.517 .267 9.411 .000

312
 Iqbal, Waqas, & Sami

Transformational -.036 .064 -.040 -.565 .572

Leadership
Innovative Environment -.026 .072 -.025 -.354 .724
Transactional Leadership .347 .050 .435 6.988 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
5.3.2. Supervisor Gender as Moderator
Table No. 11 displays the model summary with 59% variation in the dependent variable is owed to all
independent variables of male supervisor’s respondents and 34% for female supervisor’s respondents.
Model Summary
Table No. 11
Supervisor Gender Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
Male 1 .598a .358 .350 .53265
a
Female 1 .347 .120 .105 .56629
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table No. 11 reflects that both models are fit it implies that supervisor gender is not moderating in
this data set of the Higher Education Sector.
ANOVAa
Table No. 12
Supervisor Gender Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 36.233 3 12.078 42.570 .000b
Male 1 Residual 64.970 229 .284
Total 101.203 232
Regression 7.635 3 2.545 7.936 .000b
Female 1 Residual 55.799 174 .321
Total 63.434 177
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table No. 12 illustrates the individual impact of the variables in both the models. It shows that only
transactional leadership is significant in this data set. So the study may conclude that the gender of
supervisors is not moderating in the Higher Education Sector.
Coefficientsa
Table No. 13
Supervisor Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Gender Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.845 .271 6.804 .000
Transformational -.051 .062 -.049 -.821 .412
Leadership
Male 1 Innovative .043 .081 .034 .533 .594
Environment
Transactional .481 .046 .587 10.384 .000
Leadership
(Constant) 2.821 .296 9.537 .000
Transformational -.022 .070 -.026 -.312 .755
Female 1 Leadership
Innovative -.030 .078 -.032 -.385 .700
Environment

313
 Leadership Style and Employee Retention in Higher Education Sector of Pakistan

Transactional .275 .057 .354 4.857 .000

Leadership
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
Similar results are displayed in table 4.5.2.3 that supervisor gender is not moderating in this data set,
as an only transactional variable is significant in both models.

5.3.3. Education as Moderator

Table No. 14 displays the value of R2 showing 19.1% variation in Employee Retention is explained by the
independent variables when the respondent is Master qualified. It shows that 36.2% in case the respondent
is Ph.D. qualified.
Model Summary
Table No. 14
Education Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
Master 1 .437a .191 .181 .57287
a
PhD 1 .602 .362 .350 .51820
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table No. 14 shows the significance of the joint impact of all independent variables. It is significant
in both models. It implies that both models are overall fit.
ANOVAa
Table No. 15
Education Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 19.190 3 6.397 19.492 .000b
Master 1 Residual 81.388 248 .328
Total 100.578 251
Regression 23.654 3 7.885 29.362 .000b
PhD 1 Residual 41.622 155 .269
Total 65.276 158
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table No. 15 also suggesting that the Educational background of the respondent is also not
moderating in this data set and we may conclude that the Educational background of University-level
teachers is not moderating in this mode.
Coefficientsa
Table No. 16
Education Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.534 .269 9.437 .000
Transformational -.056 .062 -.058 -.897 .371
Leadership
Master 1
Innovative Environment -.006 .075 -.005 -.080 .936
Transactional .355 .048 .441 7.397 .000
Leadership
(Constant) 1.890 .300 6.295 .000
Transformational -.032 .070 -.033 -.451 .653
PhD 1
Leadership
Innovative Environment .014 .086 .012 .158 .874

314
 Iqbal, Waqas, & Sami

Transactional .478 .053 .599 8.994 .000

Leadership
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
5.3.4. Employment Status as Moderator
This section explains the findings of employment status as moderator. Table No. 17 displays the model
summary and R2 is highest among the Assistant Professors and least in Lecturers.
Model Summary
Table No. 17
Employee status Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
Lecturers 1 .437a .191 .181 .57287
Assistant Professors 1 .642a .412 .386 .51909
Associate Professors 1 .629a .395 .339 .47446
a
Professors 1 .596 .355 .314 .53824
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table No. 17 expresses the fitness of the model and the study finds that all the models are
significant. It implies that all four models for Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and
Professors are highly significant. It means all four models are fit for the analysis.
ANOVAa
Table No. 18
Employee status Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 19.190 3 6.397 19.492 .000b
Lecturers 1 Residual 81.388 248 .328
Total 100.578 251
Regression 12.826 3 4.275 15.866 .000b
Assistant Professors 1 Residual 18.323 68 .269
Total 31.148 71
Regression 4.708 3 1.569 6.971 .001b
Associate Professors 1 Residual 7.203 32 .225
Total 11.911 35
Regression 7.508 3 2.503 8.639 .000b
Professors 1 Residual 13.616 47 .290
Total 21.124 50
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Innovative
Environment
Table No. 18 illustrates the individual impact of independent variables on the dependent variables.
The study may determine that in all four models in which Employee Status is studied as moderator. All four
models show similar results and only the Transactional Leadership style is significant. It implies that even
Employment Status is not moderating in this model and data set.
Coefficientsa
Employee Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
status Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.534 .269 9.437 .000
Transformational -.056 .062 -.058 -.897 .371
Lecturers 1 Leadership
Innovative -.006 .075 -.005 -.080 .936
Environment

315
 Leadership Style and Employee Retention in Higher Education Sector of Pakistan

Transactional .355 .048 .441 7.397 .000

Leadership
(Constant) 1.990 .490 4.059 .000
Transformational .086 .118 .082 .728 .469
Leadership
Assistant
1 Innovative -.202 .159 -.152 -1.273 .207
Professors
Environment
Transactional .560 .083 .677 6.780 .000
Leadership
(Constant) 3.250 .728 4.465 .000
Transformational -.207 .114 -.258 -1.813 .079
Leadership
Associate
1 Innovative -.132 .208 -.092 -.635 .530
Professors
Environment
Transactional .395 .094 .592 4.198 .000
Leadership
(Constant) 1.592 .602 2.643 .011
Transformational -.025 .163 -.019 -.153 .879
Leadership
Professors 1 Innovative .068 .129 .068 .527 .601
Environment
Transactional .488 .103 .577 4.758 .000
Leadership
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Retention

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusion based on the discussion of empirical results discussed in this specific determines that
Transactional Leadership is significant and has an impact on employee retention in the Higher Education
Sector. Similar results were concluded by (Khan, Idris, & Amin, 2021) and (Asbari, 2020). Further, this
study concludes that in the Higher Education Sector has no dependency on any moderating variable like
Gender of the Respondent, Supervisor Gender, Educational Background, and Employment Status. The
study may recommend that transactional leadership style is crucial in the Higher Education Sector. Careful
implementation of leadership style may reduce employee retention issues.
REFERENCES
Aguirre, A., & Martinez, R. O. (2006). Diversity Leadership in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report 32 (3). San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
Asbari, M. (2020). Is Transformational Leadership Suitable for Future Organizational Needs? International
Journal of Sociology, Policy and Law (Ijospl),, 51-55.
Badillo-Vega, R., & Espinosa, A. B. (27 May 2020.). The leadership roles of Mexico’s university
presidents. Studies in Higher Education, 1-17.
Badillo-Vega, R., Georg, K., & Pedro, P. (2021, Volume 46 Issue 4). Changing analytical levels and
methods of leadership research on university presidents. Studies in Higher Education, 53-69.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership.
San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. 4th. San
Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
E.Dinh, J., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., & Liden, R. C. (2018). Leadership Theory and
Research in the New Millennium: Current Theoretical Trends and Changing Perspectives. The
Leadership Quarterly, 36-62.

316
 Iqbal, Waqas, & Sami

Jacobsen, C. B., Andersen, L. B., Bollingtoft, A., & Eriksen, T.-L. M. (2021). Can Leadership Training
Improve Organizational Effectiveness? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment on
Transformational and Transactional Leadership. dkPublic Administration Review, 1-15.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2008). Advancing Diversity Agendas on Campus: Examining Transactional
and Transformational Presidential Leadership Styles. International Journal of Leadership in
Education 11 (4), 379–405.
Khan, I. U., Idris, M., & Amin, R. U. (2021). Leadership style and performance in higher education: the
role of organizational justice. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-15.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, , D. (2019). Transformational leadership. The Essentials of School Leadership,
37-52.
Masduki Asbari, & Novitasari, D. (2020). THE ROLE OF READINESS FOR CHANGE ON PART-
TIMER EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: ANALYSIS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP PRACTICE IN CONVECTION INDUSTRY. Journal Of Communication
Education, 14-22.
Purwanto, A., Asbari, M., & Santoso, P. b. (2019). Influence of Transformational and Transactional
Leadership Style toward Food Safety Management System ISO 22000:2018 Performance of Food
Industry in Pati Central Java. Inovbiz, 180-185.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2013). The Chief Diversity Officer: Strategy, Structure, and
Change Management. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Winoto, H., Tecoalu, M., & Wijaya, S. (2021). The Effect of Compensation and Supervisor Support
Mediated by Job Satisfaction on Employee Retention (Case Study at PT Pradu). JURNAL
EKONOMI DAN BISNIS, 1-11.
Yamin, M. A. ((2020). Examining the role of transformational leadership and entrepreneurial orientation
on employee retention with moderating role of competitive advantage. Management Science
Letters, 313–326.
Yasin, R. (2021). Responsible leadership and employees’ turnover intention. Explore the mediating roles
of ethical climate and corporate image. ournal of Knowledge Management.
Zaman, M. N., Novitasari, D., Goestjahjanti, F. S., Fahlevi, M., Nadeak, M., Fahmi, K., . . . Asbari, M.
(2020). Effect of Readiness to Change and Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership
onWorkers’ Performance during Covid-19 Pandemic. Solid State Technology, 185-200.

317