+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

For this discussion, to locate a published dissertation on a business topic that interests you (Attached). Analyze the document and present it. Your analysis should consist of the following elements:

Introduction (provide a brief overview of the purpose and significance of the study)

•    Explain the methodology of the study

•    Research Questions

•    Quantitative or Qualitative

•    Instruments used

•    Participants (population, sample size)

•    Explain the findings

•    Explain the document’s contribution to research

•    Discuss what should be done to extend this research

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLES,
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION, AND EMPLOYEE DECISIONMAKING SELF-EFFICACY DURING A CRISIS IN THE
MID-ATLANTIC HOTEL INDUSTRY
Doctoral Dissertation
Submitted to the
Faculty of Saint Leo University
Donald Tapia School of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
By
Stanley J. Zgrzepski, IV
March 21, 2022
ii
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLES,
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION, AND EMPLOYEE DECISIONMAKING SELF-EFFICACY DURING A CRISIS IN THE
MID-ATLANTIC HOTEL INDUSTRY
Copyright ©2022
Stanley J. Zgrzepski, IV
All rights reserved
iii
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLES, EMPLOYEE JOB
SATISFACTION, AND EMPLOYEE DECISION-MAKING SELF-EFFICACY DURING A
CRISIS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC HOTEL INDUSTRY
Doctoral Dissertation Paper
Submitted to the
Faculty of Saint Leo University
Donald Tapia School of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree of
The Doctor of Business Administration
By
Stanley J. Zgrzepski, IV
March 21, 2022
Peter D. Berardi, Ph.D (Mar 25, 2022 17:06 EDT)
25 March, 2022
Peter Berardi, Ph.D., Chair
Date
Charles D. Oden
Charles D. Oden (Mar 22, 2022 11:16 EDT)
Charles Oden, DBA, Member
DAle Mancini
DAle M ancini (M ar 25, 2022 17:22 EDT)
Dale Mancini, Ph.D., DBA Program Director
iv
ABSTRACT
The central purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationships between
leadership styles, job satisfaction, and employee decision-making self-efficacy in the MidAtlantic hotel industry during a crisis. The theoretical framework was based on the
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles; employee job satisfaction; and
decision-making self-efficacy. The COVID-19 pandemic is fertile ground for new research
within the hotel industry. Cross-sectional data from a total of 150 participants within this
industry were collected using the third-party vendor Qualtrics. A multiple linear regression was
performed and the data were then examined using IBM Statistical Product and Service Solutions
(SPSS) software. The findings revealed leadership styles positively and negatively affect
employee job satisfaction and decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis in the Mid-Atlantic
region hotel industry. This research adds to the body of literature and provides a platform for
further research into the relationships between leadership styles, job satisfaction, and decisionmaking self-efficacy in the Mid-Atlantic hotel industry during a crisis.
Keywords: transformational leadership, transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership, Crisis
Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding (C-LEAD) scale
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, this journey would not have been possible without God! My
achievements and completion of this program were possible because of the positive influences
from family members, friends from Fishtown, Philadelphia, mentors, and Cohort 11. To my son,
I am proud of how hard you work as a freshman at Mustang High School. Your hard work and
dedication in the band and wrestling team far surpass my abilities and maturity at that age. This
degree is just an example of how far you can go to reach your full potential. When I first enlisted
in the Air Force, I was a young, naïve kid who did not understand the journey I soon would face.
The Air Force helped hone my leadership skills, gave me the confidence to overcome any
challenge, and provided structure to help me grow from a boy into a man. I want to thank my
sister, Joanne, for always taking the time to proofread my papers and provide constructive
feedback over the last 4 years. Retired MSgt Craig Gilbert and Kevin Johnson, your leadership
and guidance over the last 20+ years still resonate with me today, and I appreciate everything
you have done for me. I consider you the two most influential leaders I have ever worked for
during my Air Force career. Dr. Mancini, Dr. Oden, and Dr. Berardi, I appreciate your
mentorship and guidance over the last several years as I stumbled and made mistakes, but you all
were always there to help pick me back up with encouraging words so I could continue this
journey. To Saint Leo University and the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) staff, I
appreciate all the help and assistance over the last 4 years, and I look forward to joining the Saint
Leo family.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Background of the Problem ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Research Questions and Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………………. 9
Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Assumptions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Delimitations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………………………………. 18
COVID-19 Pandemic ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
History of Leadership ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
History of Decision-Making ……………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Current Literature on Decision-Making………………………………………………………………………. 26
Decision-Making Self-Efficacy …………………………………………………………………………………. 28
Leadership Styles and Decision-Making …………………………………………………………………….. 30
Leadership in the Hotel Industry………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Seminal Research on Job Satisfaction ………………………………………………………………………… 35
Current Literature on Job Satisfaction ………………………………………………………………………… 37
Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
Transformational Leadership …………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Transformational Leadership and Job Satisfaction ………………………………………………….. 48
Transformational Leadership Criticism …………………………………………………………………. 49
Transactional Leadership Theory ………………………………………………………………………………. 50
Laissez-Faire Leadership Theory ……………………………………………………………………………….. 52
Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………. 57
Research Design………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 58
Research Questions and Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………………….. 59
Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60
Population and Sample …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
vii
Participants and Data ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
Instrumentation ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) …………………………………………………… 63
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) ………………………………………………………… 64
Crisis Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding (C-LEAD) ………………………………….. 65
MLQ 5X, MSQ, and C-LEAD Reliability and Validity …………………………………………… 66
Data Collection ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 68
Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………………….. 71
Data Cleaning and Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………… 71
Descriptive Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 72
Reliability Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 76
Correlations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 78
Regression Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 83
Hypotheses Testing ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 88
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 90
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………….. 92
Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92
Summary of the Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 93
Research Question 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 94
Research Question 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 94
Research Question 3 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 94
Research Question 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 94
Research Question 5 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 95
Research Question 6 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 95
Research Question 7 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 95
Practical Implications ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 95
Research Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………… 98
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 100
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 101
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 125
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Leadership Theory Development …………………………………………………………………………. 23
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………….. 74
Table 3 Reliability Analysis Results (Cronbach Alpha) ……………………………………………………… 77
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………….. 77
Table 5 Correlations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 79
Table 6 Regression Analysis Results for MSQ as the Dependent Variable …………………………… 84
Table 7 Regression Analysis Results for C-LEAD as the Dependent Variable ……………………… 85
Table 8 Regression Analysis Results for Employee Job Satisfaction ……………………………………. 86
Table 9 Regression Analysis Results for Employee Decision-Making Self-Efficacy ……………… 87
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Features of Transformational Leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2004) …………………………… 42
Figure 2 Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Figure 3 Full Range of Leadership Model (DeDeyn, 2021) ………………………………………………… 45
Figure 4 G* Power Statistical Analysis for Confidence Level …………………………………………….. 62
Figure 5 Transformational Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction ………………………………… 80
Figure 6 Transactional Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction ……………………………………… 80
Figure 7 Laissez-Faire Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction ……………………………………… 81
Figure 8 Transformational Leadership and Decision-Making Self-Efficacy………………………….. 81
Figure 9 Transactional Leadership and Decision-Making Self-Efficacy ………………………………. 82
Figure 10 Laissez-Faire Leadership and Decision-Making Self-Efficacy ……………………………… 83
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A. Implied Consent to Participate in Research………………………………………………. 126
APPENDIX B. Demographic Questions ………………………………………………………………………… 128
APPENDIX C. Sample Email to Participants………………………………………………………………….. 132
APPENDIX D. Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………………………….. 134
APPENDIX E. Scatter Plot Diagrams ……………………………………………………………………………. 138
APPENDIX F. Regression Analysis Employee Job Satisfaction ……………………………………….. 143
APPENDIX G. Regression Analysis Employee Decision-Making Self-Efficacy …………………. 145
APPENDIX H. Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………………………….. 147
APPENDIX I. Cronbach’s Item Statistics ………………………………………………………………………. 151
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Pedersen et al. (2020) stated the COVID-19 pandemic reflects a worldwide crisis, as the
whole hotel industry remain under mandates and people are experiencing extreme volatility in
everyday living. The word crisis originated from Greek etymological roots called crisis and it is
often associated with decisive moments, decision-making, or judgment (Pedersen et al., 2020). A
crisis can occur as a result of many circumstances, such as hurricanes, fires, self-inflicted
unethical actions by senior leaders, or a global pandemic. Kaul et al. (2020) stated chaotic
events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can create new opportunities to study leadership styles
during a crisis. Callahan (2020) stated the COVID-19 pandemic is fertile ground for new
research within the hotel industry. For example, forward-thinking leaders use a crisis as an
opportunity to try out innovative approaches or revamp outdated processes to make products
more robust and policies more effective. However, Dearstyne (2007) and Frohman (2006)
indicated decision-making is extremely difficult for leaders––especially those who are under
high stress levels as local, state, and federal COVID-19 policies continue to change.
Past events such as Hurricane Katrina highlight the importance of decision-making and
relationships with leadership as poor leadership can lead to catastrophic outcomes (Pittinsky et
al., 2005). Effective leadership during a crisis is essential, and McKinsey & Company (2020)
recommended the following five leadership practices to ensure such leadership is in place: (a)
organize to respond appropriately, (b) evaluate leaders during the crisis, (c) make decisions
during uncertainty and pause and reassess, (d) display empathy, and (e) provide frequent updates.
Any inquiry discovered from this examination could benefit the overall hotel industry in the
Mid-Atlantic region and leaders of human resource development (HRD) departments as they
explore and create leadership development initiatives.
2
The 50th anniversary of the Apollo 13 launch on April 11, 1970. passed almost 2 years
ago, and Magid and Busch (2020) postulated the explosion on Apollo 13 could assist business
leaders in learning how to lead through a crisis. Experience to Lead (2020) examined the Apollo
13 explosion and used that crisis as a lesson learned for the COVID-19 pandemic. They
developed the following recommendations for leading through a crisis: (a) establish urgent
priority, (b) react with responsive innovation, and (c) give clear communication when making
decisions. McKinsey & Company (2020) stated a crisis creates uncertainty and leaders are placed
in unfamiliar circumstances. For example, a small group of decision-makers at the top of an
organization cannot collect enough information quickly to make necessary decisions during a
crisis. Kaul et al. (2020) stressed that constant communication is essential during a crisis because
uncertainty creates anxiety and employees might view no news as bad news. Currently, the
pandemic is ongoing and is considered to be a crisis, and to date, the federal government has not
determined when the crisis will end. According to Hadley et al. (2007), leadership is required
throughout an organization during a crisis––from senior leaders to employees executing the plan.
Determining which leadership styles are most effective during a crisis could have practical
implications for HRD and future leadership development programs.
The Mid-Atlantic region was particularly damaged by the COVID-19 crisis with New
York City being the largest metropolitan city in the Mid-Atlantic region. According to the New
York City Department of City Planning (2017), there are 115,530 hotel rooms within the five
boroughs. Philadelphia is the second largest city in the region and Visit Philadelphia (2019)
reported a record 45 million people visited Philadelphia in 2019 and spent $7.6 billion on leisure
activities; this represented a 2% increase in the number of visitors over the year 2017. The Live
Hotel and Casino opened within a 15-minute driving distance from the Philadelphia airport and
3
within walking distance from all four major Philadelphia sports teams. This hotel and casino is
the country’s first-ever comprehensive nationwide professional video gaming competition,
resort, and entertainment district.
Over the last several years, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the hotel
industry’s financial performance within the Mid-Atlantic region. The COVID-19 pandemic has
affected the hotel industry because customers expect sanitized rooms and poor hygiene
techniques only exacerbate the virus (Chandra & Christensen, 2017). New York suffered
significant losses after its hotel occupancy rates decreased to 38%, which is 12% below the
national average (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). The Philadelphia hotel industry
suffered a 13.9% job loss, which is higher than the 11.8% national average (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2020). Washington, DC, has suffered a steep decline in hotel guests and started
to close hotels, with 18.3% of the rooms temporarily filled compared to 78.2% in April of 2019
(American University Radio, 2020). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused uncertainty
surrounding the hotel industry’s economic performance and inner cities are the hardest hit by
travel restrictions and a lack of customers (Knezevich, 2021). Also Matthau (2020) estimated
that 68% of New Jersey’s hotels are half-staffed; 45,000 employees have been laid off; and the
layoffs could reach as many as 88,000 employees. Last, Osborne (2020) reported the hotel
industry in Delaware has suffered catastrophic losses. Leaders in the hotel industry have
requested property and lodging tax deferments from state and local officials because of the slew
of laid-off workers. Subsequently, with the uncertainty of job layoffs and the potential to contract
the deadly COVID-19 virus, hotel employees are under considerable stress.
During a crisis, leaders’ uncertainty and fatigue can swell, causing poor judgment
because their leadership skills might diminish under pressure (McKinsey & Company, 2020).
4
Furthermore, a crisis is a perfect time for senior leaders to evaluate employees’ leadership skills
and decision-making abilities (McKinsey & Company, 2020). Therefore, HRD plays an
important role during a crisis as effective leadership can be useful for business and is important
for financial stability. Leadership during a crisis covers a wide array of situations, but COVID-19
presents unprecedented challenges because employees are putting their lives at risk by merely
going to work.
Leadership is considered a complex concept with many definitions. Still, universal
similarities can present a classification scheme for what is regarded as effective leadership (Bass,
1981). Empirical evidence consistently shows job satisfaction is positively related to job
performance and high-producing employees are more satisfied than are low performers (Bhagat,
1982). According to Eliyana et al. (2019), job satisfaction reflects how happy and well-rewarded
employees are with their work. Increased happiness at work relates to organizational
commitment because happy employees display reduced turnover intention and increased work
performance (Eliyana et al., 2019). Maxwell (2011) defined leadership as investing in people and
inspiring them to reach higher goals than they set for themselves. In the current study, the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was administered to employees in the hotel
industry to rate their supervisors’ perceived leadership style, the Minnesota Survey
Questionnaire (MSQ) was used to measure employees’ overall job satisfaction, and the C-LEAD
was used to measure employees’ decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis. This research was
designed to fill the research gap by having employees examine their supervisors’ perceived
leadership style and its effects on employee job satisfaction and decision-making self-efficacy.
5
Background of the Problem
Deloitte (2021) reported the hotel industry has been the hardest hit by COVID-19 as
hotels remain closed or at limited capacity as local, state, and federal officials develop policies to
slow the spread of the virus. According to Kaul et al. (2020), the COVID-19 pandemic has
caused unprecedented harm across the globe and placed enormous stress on leaders. Avolio and
Luthans (2006) posited leaders who are comfortable with themselves have an easier time
regulating their emotions and are more likely to positively interact with employees. According to
McKinsey & Company (2020), displaying empathy and making a positive difference in
employees’ lives are top priorities for organizational success. Fragouli (2020) suggested
communication is important during a crisis to execute plans and set standards to reduce
disruptions. According to Kendrick et al. (2019), establishing effective communication channels
between employees and supervisors is important and supervisors should be empowered to take
the initiative. Musinguzi et al. (2018) recommended more leadership development training to
emulate transformational leadership characteristics because evidence-based research shows
leadership styles positively influence employees’ job satisfaction.
Bass (1981) stated more leadership activity is associated with employee job satisfaction
and organizational performance and effectiveness regardless of leadership style. The definition
of leadership has continued to evolve over the last several decades, but a leader will train, select,
equip, and inspire others (Gandolfi & Stone, 2018). There is a dark side of leadership that HRD
professionals should be aware of that may affect relationships with employee job satisfaction and
decision-making self-efficacy. According to Douglas et al. (2012), the dark side of leadership
comprises the following three leadership personalities: (a) narcissism, (b) Machiavellianism, and
(c) psychopathy. Maladaptive behaviors have been extensively researched by Hogan (2009) and
6
these toxic leadership behaviors could be apparent throughout the organization. As the COVID19 virus continues to mutate into new strains and spreads throughout the region, HRD
professionals should also recognize the consequences of leadership and impacts on the hotel
industry in terms of job satisfaction and decision-making self-efficacy. Hogan stated successful
leaders communicate effectively, build teams, foster teamwork, and organize and motivate
others, whereas poor leadership is absent of these skills and negatively affects employees’ job
satisfaction and performance.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty surrounding the hotel industry’s
financial performance. For example, in Pennsylvania and Virginia, 50 hotels have permanently
closed and there have been 6,300 employee layoffs (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 2020). Effective leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to
protect workers’ health and safety and withstand the economic crisis that includes massive
layoffs (Loh et al., 2020). Traditionally, senior executives are viewed as responsible for setting
strategic initiatives; however, first-level supervisors also implement organizational strategies
because they have daily contact with employees (Edgelow, 2012). Loh et al. (2020) provided the
following five areas to consider to protect the health and well-being of employees working in the
hotel industry during a crisis: (a) income security, (b) food security, (c) workplace safety, (d)
support career mobility, and (e) health insurance and paid leave. The hotel industry contracted
more than any other industry in the Mid-Atlantic region because it was not easily adaptable to
social distancing (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020). The MidAtlantic region is the most populated region in the country, and government lockdowns have
caused a decrease in hotel occupancy, leading to 30% of employees being laid off (U.S.
7
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020). The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (2020) monitors 11 key payroll jobs in the Mid-Atlantic region, and the
leisure and hotel industry was the most affected, with a -42.9% decline in business sales because
of the crisis.
Callahan (2020) interviewed 100 hotel workers and found many experienced stress
surrounding the fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus. Some were grateful they could even
work, as millions of Americans are unemployed. The pandemic’s rapidly changing events have
created unprecedented challenges for employees and the hotel industry because freedom of
movement is restricted. As the pandemic continues to cause turmoil throughout the Mid-Atlantic
region, leadership becomes increasingly important because of the constant pressures felt within
the hotel industry.
Hotel staff routinely work near hundreds of customers who travel from unknown places,
placing them at risk of unknowingly contracting the virus each time they come to work. The
pandemic not only affects the employees, it affects their families as well because employees
must be careful not to contract the virus at work and potentially spread it to elderly loved ones or
those with compromised immune systems. Quintana et al. (2015) stated hotel managers are
instrumental during a crisis in explaining situations to reduce anxiety because employees rely on
management for direction and advice during uncertain times. As sources for job satisfaction and
comfort, leaders show positive relationships to employee job satisfaction by exhibiting individual
leadership styles (Bass, 1981). Defining leadership is problematic because it is subjective, and
each person may have a different interpretation. Birkenmeier and Sanséau (2016) noted
performance relationships between supervisors and employees have been researched since the
8
1950s and 1960s and employees’ job satisfaction, stress, and organizational commitment are
intertwined.
Studies of job satisfaction and employee turnover have yielded conflicting reports and
Terason (2018) reported numerous studies have been conducted on leadership styles and job
satisfaction, but few have been completed during a pandemic. Organizational commitment and
happiness are psychological states of mind an employee feels that directly contribute to job
satisfaction. Consequently, results of the current study might benefit HRD professionals by
examining which leadership styles are most effective and affect employee decision-making selfefficacy and job satisfaction during a crisis. Furthermore, Yue et al. (2019) argued that
leadership directly influences attitudes, and organizational leaders rely on their leadership styles
to lead employees during uncertain times.
Purpose of the Study
The focus in this study was to examine the relationships between leadership styles,
employee decision-making self-efficacy, and employee job satisfaction in the Mid-Atlantic hotel
industry during a crisis. The Mid-Atlantic region consists of the following states: (a)
Pennsylvania, (b) New York, (c) New Jersey, (d) Delaware, (e) Maryland, (f) West Virginia, (g)
Virginia, and (h) Washington, DC. Hotel employees working in junior, mid-level, and seniorlevel positions evaluated their supervisors’ leadership styles during a crisis and the effects on
their job satisfaction and decision-making self-efficacy. The theoretical framework was based on
the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles; job satisfaction; and the
Crisis Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding (C-LEAD) scale. The primary purpose of this
study was to measure supervisors’ perceived leadership styles and effects on employee decisionmaking self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Secondary information was collected in an attempt to
9
examine whether military veterans’ leadership styles have a positive impact on the hotel
industry. Bobek et al. (2019) uncovered a direct correlation between leadership styles and
decreased job satisfaction, so the COVID-19 pandemic presents unusual challenges for leader
and employees during a crisis. The data collected were intended to provide helpful information
for HRD professionals regarding what leadership styles are most effective during a crisis.
Fragouli’s (2020) research emphasized that specific information must be considered before
selecting a leadership style to steer an organization through a crisis successfully.
Leaders must recognize the early warning signs during a crisis to quickly understand the
situation and formulate a plan of attack to effectively communicate the plan to employees
(Fragouli, 2020). Results of the current study could help determine which leadership styles are
most effective during a crisis, HRD leaders can develop a curriculum for leadership
development. Consequently, seven research questions were developed to test their effects on
these constructs to understand the relationships between leadership styles, employee decisionmaking self-efficacy, and job satisfaction.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This research involved the use of non-directional research questions to find the
differences or relationships between the following independent and dependent variables: (a)
transformational leadership, (b) transactional leadership, (c) laissez-faire leadership, (d)
employee job satisfaction, and (e) employee decision-making self-efficacy (Wrench et al., 2016).
This was deemed the best approach with which to examine leadership styles, job satisfaction, and
employee decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
10
Research Questions
RQ1. What is the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job
satisfaction during a crisis?
RQ2. What is the relationship between transformational leadership and employee
decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis?
RQ3. What is the relationship between transactional leadership and employee job
satisfaction during a crisis?
RQ4. What is the relationship between transactional leadership and employee decisionmaking self-efficacy during a crisis?
RQ5. What is the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and employee job
satisfaction during a crisis?
RQ6. What is the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and employee decisionmaking self-efficacy during a crisis?
RQ7. What is the relationship between employee job satisfaction and employee decisionmaking self-efficacy during a crisis?
Hypotheses
H10. There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and
employee job satisfaction during a crisis.
H1a. There is a significant relationship between transformational leadership and
employee job satisfaction during a crisis.
H20. There is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and
employee decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
11
H2a. There is a significant relationship between transformational leadership and
employee decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
H30. There is no significant relationship between transactional leadership and employee
job satisfaction during a crisis.
H3a. There is a significant relationship between transactional leadership and employee
job satisfaction during a crisis.
H40. There is no significant relationship between transactional leadership and employee
decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
H4a. There is a significant relationship between transactional leadership and employee
decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
H50. There is no significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and employee
job satisfaction during a crisis.
H5a. There is a significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and employee job
satisfaction during a crisis.
H60. There is no significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and employee
decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
H6a. There is a significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership and employee
decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
H70. There is no significant relationship between employee job satisfaction and employee
decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
H7a. There is a significant relationship between employee job satisfaction and employee
decision-making self-efficacy during a crisis.
12
Assumptions
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2019), researchers should identify assumptions,
limitations, and delimitations that have the potential to affect their research. It was assumed all
participants were employed in the hotel industry and worked in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Additionally, it was assumed participants working in this region and industry were representative
of all the employees working in the hotel industry in the Mid-Atlantic region. All participants
were assumed to be over 18 years of age and fully capable of completing the survey under the
conditions of anonymity. It was assumed that each person voluntarily participated and completed
the self-report survey honestly and ethically without employers’ undue influence.
Limitations
According to Wrench et al. (2016), every research project is affected by limitations, and
identifying these limitations is not signaling the research design is flawed. It is important to
identify any research limitations because it alerts readers that the research project is well thought
out and comprehensive (Wrench et al., 2016). The MLQ, MSQ, and C-LEAD were the primary
instruments used to examine leadership styles, decision-making self-efficacy, and job
satisfaction. As the focus was on the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
styles applied during a crisis, this study did not include additional leadership styles and their
relationships to decision-making self-efficacy and job satisfaction. A multidimensional research
study on every possible factor affecting employee decision-making self-efficacy and job
satisfaction would have been impractical and was well beyond this research scope.
What constitutes job satisfaction is subjective and ambiguous for each employee, so it is
difficult to determine what makes the employee satisfied. Self-evaluations of decision-making
are also subjective, and participants may have exaggerated their decision-making self-efficacy.
13
Therefore, it was incumbent for each participant to complete the surveys honestly to ensure the
data were accurate. Another limitation was the ability of participants to read and comprehend the
MLQ, MSQ, and C-LEAD information. The decision to administer the surveys through Qualtrics
was made in an attempt to mitigate any potential bias from the participants.
The quantitative method and multiple linear regression analysis were limitations because
interviews were not part of the research. The collection methods included only self-report
surveys from participants in the Mid-Atlantic region hotel industry, so bias and survey fatigue
may have contributed to inaccurate data. A downward trend involving survey response rates is
that survey fatigue contributes to participants filling out erroneous information because
evidence-based research has shown surveys can make people tired (Sinickas, 2007). Employees
from other countries and regions were not surveyed, and the study was limited to the MidAtlantic region. The participants might not have been truthful or candid when taking the survey.
Additionally, human behavior changes and participants can experience numerous related
feelings that can affect the survey results as capturing emotions from survey participants has
been elusive. Research scientists routinely employ self-report surveys; however, there is little
value when analyzing emotions in real time because participants may experience (a) bias, (b)
memory loss, (c) uncertain access to consciousness, and (d) self-deception of prior events
(Ritchie et al., 2016).
Delimitations
Due to the nature of this study and the scope of this research, it was impractical to survey
each of the 868,000 hotel employees in the Mid-Atlantic region, so Qualtrics randomly sampled
hotel employees age 18 to 50 years and over. Additionally, to narrow the scope of the research,
the researcher developed nine delimitations. First, the sample population was hotel employees
14
ages 18–65 years to ensure they had adequate experience, knowledge, and education to complete
all the surveys accurately. Second, the scope of the research was limited to employees only
working in the hotel industry in the Mid-Atlantic region. Third, the quantitative methodology
was used to collect data; qualitative research was not used and interviews were not part of this
study. Fourth, only the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles were
measured with closed-ended responses. Fifth, employees rated their supervisors’ perceived
leadership styles in accordance with the MLQ. Sixth, leadership styles, job satisfaction, and
decision-making self-efficacy are subjective, and the study involved using the MLQ, MSQ, and
C-LEAD instruments to measure these constructs. Seventh, because turnover may be high during
the pandemic and to gain a precise measurement of transformational, transactional, and laissezfaire leadership styles, survey participants needed to have at least 30 days of hotel experience
working under the same supervision. Eighth, the publications for the literature review were
written in English. Last, job satisfaction and employee decision-making self-efficacy were the
only dependent variables analyzed to narrow the research scope, and this research did not require
additional dependent variables.
Definition of Terms
Creswell and Creswell (2018) highlighted the importance of including a section listing
definitions of terms as a way to reduce confusion.
COVID-19: An influenza virus that differs from previous seasonal influenzas. The virus
is novel so most humans did not possess immunity at first. The virus continues to mutate from
the Alpha, Delta, to the Omicron variant. The COVID-19 virus spread throughout the globe in
months, killing millions of people. The death rates are typically determined by health, age,
weight, and preexisting comorbidities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC],
15
2016). The A strain has mutated into the Delta strain and is considered more transmissible but
less deadly (CDC, 2022). Currently, Omicron is the most prevalent strain throughout the world;
it is less deadly than the Delta variant, but more transmissible.
Decision-making: The decision-making process is iterative in which individuals, groups,
or organizations reach decisions about future objectives. This process involves collecting data,
intelligence-gathering, coming to conclusions, and learning from experience (Schoemaker,
1993).
Decision-making efficacy: Self-efficacy relates to how a person views their ability or
inability to perform a task or behavior. Low efficacy correlates with individuals who avoid these
behaviors or tasks in decision-making (Bandura, 1982).
Extrinsic job satisfaction: This job satisfaction level relates to external motivational
factors (i.e., hygiene factors) such as compensation, supervision styles, working environment,
coworkers and organizational relationships, job status, and job description (Herzberg et al.,
1959).
Intrinsic job satisfaction: These factors relate to internal motivational factors such as
work achievement, organizational recognition, upward mobility within the organization, and the
actual daily work (Herzberg et al., 1959).
Job satisfaction: How employees view interrelated outcomes related to supervisors’
emotions and attitudes and the organizational climate. Job satisfaction relates to the position’s
emotional and behavioral aspects that concern the employee’s overall feelings or organizational
environment and culture (Locke, 1976).
Laissez-faire leadership style: Laissez-faire leaders are characterized by being passive
and avoiding decision-making. These leaders avoid taking a stand on issues, fail to set goals, and
16
rarely follow up to gauge performance results (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ): The MSQ is a 20-item self-report survey
used to assess intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction (D. J. Weiss et al., 1967).
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ): The MLQ is considered the most
acceptable instrument to assess the full range of leadership (RFL) involving transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Transactional leadership style: Leaders who lead through social exchanges such as
exchanging one thing for another or offering financial rewards for performance (Bass & Riggio,
2006). Transactional leaders also focus on meeting particular standards and contingent rewards
for contingent performance (DuBrin, 2016).
Transformational leadership style: Transformational leaders are inspirational and build
confidence in subordinates, which, in turn, leads to the improved success of operations (Daft,
2008). Transformational leaders encourage positive change within their organizations and
closely align with charismatic leader characteristics (DuBrin, 2016).
Conclusion
This study involved conducting a quantifiable assessment of the relationships between
leadership styles, employee decision-making self-efficacy, and job satisfaction during a crisis.
This chapter provided an overview of the study of leadership styles and their relationship to
employee decision-making self-efficacy and job satisfaction during a crisis in the Mid-Atlantic
region’s hotel industry. This chapter provided detailed information involving the study’s
assumptions, limitations, and delimitations. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to
determine the relationships between the independent and dependent variables and statistical
17
significance. The MLQ, MSQ, and C-LEAD were the three primary instruments used to collect
data from the participants.
Qualtrics collected the data through self-report surveys and SPSS was used to perform
the data analysis. A comprehensive quantitative analysis was performed to determine employees’
job satisfaction, decision-making self-efficacy, and relationship to leadership styles during a
crisis. The sample consisted of employees within the Mid-Atlantic region hotel industry who
were 18 and 50 years old and over. The theoretical framework was based on the
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles; job satisfaction; and the CLEAD. The hotel industry in the Mid-Atlantic region was decimated with massive layoffs during
the COVID-19 pandemic. These events have caused significant challenges for leaders in this
region. Increased employee decision-making self-efficacy and job satisfaction levels may
correlate to improved organizational performance. Chapter 2 presents the literature review that
formed the basis for this research study.
18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The focus of this literature review is on the COVID-19 pandemic, the history of
leadership, the history of decision-making, decision-making self-efficacy, and seminal research
on job satisfaction. It provides a historical perspective on leadership styles dating back from the
Sargon of Akkad period, to the Roman Empire until what is now considered modern-day
leadership theory and salient leadership styles. According to Li et al. (2018), leadership styles are
important for organizational behavior and human resources management (HRM) because an
organization’s success relies on effective leadership. This study’s overarching purpose was to
examine leadership styles during the COVID-19 pandemic and their relationship to employee
decision-making self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The data and findings can potentially provide
information to assist HRD professionals in developing leadership programs to emulate effective
leadership styles before, during, and perhaps after a crisis.
Leadership is at the forefront of scholarly research now that the COVID-19 virus
continually mutates into the Delta and Omicron variants, so the role of leadership and how
organizations respond to a crisis can have financial impacts. Research is still ongoing as COVID19 is still active, and some states are reducing the mandates and trying to get back to prepandemic policies. However, much of the Mid-Atlantic region is on lockdown with mask and
vaccine mandates and the financial toll on businesses and performance may take years to
understand fully. Currently, no literature was found on leadership styles and their relationship to
employee decision-making self-efficacy and job satisfaction during a crisis in the Mid-Atlantic
region. This study was designed to address this gap in the literature by providing new data and
findings regarding how perceived leadership styles affect employee decision-making selfefficacy and job satisfaction. The following section covers the COVID-19 pandemic and then the
19
review transitions into a brief discussion of leadership history from throughout the last several
thousand years until the present-day theories taught in academics and leadership development
programs nationwide.
COVID-19 Pandemic
COVID-19 is not the first pandemic to spread throughout the world, killing millions of
people. On average, deadly influenza pandemics spread worldwide once every 10 to 30 years,
killing millions of people even after implementing isolation, quarantine, and worldwide control
effort policies (CDC, 2022). The acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first
originated from Wuhan, China, in November of 2019 and then spread throughout the world in
months, killing over one million people in just 1 year (Singh et al., 2020). Before the COVID-19
pandemic, several deadly viruses in the 20th century spread throughout the world in months. The
1918 Spanish Influenza was the world’s first pandemic of the 20th century and lasted 3 years,
killing an estimated 50 million people (CDC, 2019; Chandra & Christensen, 2017). Following
the 1918 Spanish flu, the H2N2 virus known as “Asian Flu” killed an estimated 1.1 million
people and lasted from 1957–1958. The Asian Flu was first reported in Singapore in February of
1957 and spread to U.S. coastal cities by the Summer of 1957 (CDC, 2022).
The 1968 Influenza A (H3N2) was first reported in the United States in 1968 and the
virus continues to spread throughout the globe today (CDC, 2022). The H3N2 virus only affects
people age 65 or older and has killed 1 million people. In the Spring of 2009, the Influenza A
(H1N1) virus was detected in the United States and spread quickly throughout the world. The
H1N1 novel influenza was not as deadly as first anticipated because people over the age of 60
already had antibodies from previous exposure to the H1N1 virus earlier in their lives. According
to the CDC (2022), viruses continually change into new variants, just as is occurring now with
20
the COVID-19 virus. These variants disappear and then resurface, with some being more
transmissible than others with high virulent ratings. Currently, the CDC is monitoring the
following four variants from the COVID-19 virus: (a) B.1.1.7 (Alpha), (b) B.1.351 (Beta), (c)
P.1 (Gamma), (d) B.1.617.2 (Delta), and (e) BA.2 Omicron. Some of these variants spread more
quickly than others, and scientists are studying them to understand how they spread more quickly
and whether patients respond to treatment. The CDC published a summary of changes in July
2021 highlighting that the Delta variant is spreading throughout the United States, vaccinated
people should wear a mask, and there is a need for a universal mask policy for teachers and
students regardless of vaccination status. The virus frequently changes and mutates, and it
appears the CDC might publish more summaries of changes before the winter of 2022 concludes
because the situation is continuously evolving––particularly for business leaders.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused organizational leaders to make radical changes to
ensure the safety and well-being of their employees, and the leadership climate is essential when
leading through this type of change (Winasis et al., 2020). Recent research shows
transformational leadership is effective when leading through change because workers are more
motivated, have increased self-confidence, develop better problem-solving skills, and show more
positive attitudes (Winasis et al., 2020). Every crisis causes significant damage to organizations,
and it is the organization’s objective to mitigate both internal and external damage when making
changes. According to Escortell et al. (2020), the transformational leadership style has become a
successful tool for managers when leading through change and a crisis. The following section
provides a brief discussion of the history of leadership from the Sargon of Akkad period (c.
2334–2279 BC) to the fall of the Roman Empire and current leadership styles.
21
History of Leadership
According to Bryman (2011), leadership is instrumental in the quest for survival and
domination and dates as far back as Sargon of Akkad (c. 2334–2279 BC) to what is now known
as the Middle East, the Cretan civilizations, from around 3000 BC. The history of classical
leadership can be arguably tied back to Kausalya’s The Arthrasastra, known as the Mauryan
Dynasty (what is now called India). Their written literature dates back to around 321 BC
(Bryman, 2011). An exorbitant amount has been written about leadership over the last 200 years.
Scholars have been increasing the literature on contemporary leadership, but mainly what is
known about leadership from the past is from written text. More specifically, this information
was written mainly by leaders who won battles and less by those who lost (Bryman, 2011). For
example, how is it that Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar’s victories are discussed among
current historians, but so little is known about Spartacus and not much is mentioned about the
numerous great slave revolts that regularly affected societies throughout ancient times (Bryman,
2011).
Thus, it is important to be wary of contemporary leadership literature as the text can be
viewed from a spectrum that may not provide the complete picture, as this literature may not
value the pure genius of the opposing side. The impression of leadership began with exploring
specific individuals considered heroic, such as Caesar, Napoleon, Nelson, Mao Zedong, and
others who led individually (Bennett & Murakami, 2016). The Roman Republic created a threetiered level of leadership hierarchy: (a) top-level, (b) middle level, and (c) low-level leadership
positions (Vanderbroeck, 1987). During this time, between 80–50 BC, there was a predilection
with collective behavior leadership. The top leaders were considered great men, middle-level
leaders were seen as assistants, and lower level were plebs with an exaggerated title
22
(Vanderbroeck, 1987). Throughout history, scholars widely studied the Roman Empire, but
Ferrill (1986) posited the fall of the Empire was not caused by internal weaknesses but rather the
deterioration of their Army. The fall of the Roman Empire is dated 476 AD, and the Army
openly mocked their treatment and salary compared to their barbarian allies.
Ferrill (1986) argued that Rome’s inability to make war was directly associated with a
lack of discipline, low morale, and ineffective leadership. Moreover, a significant aspect of the
collapse is directly proportionate with leadership’s inability to address internal and external
threats with a robust military posture. For that reason, Conger (1991) postulated leaders must
detect opportunities and then craft an inspirational message to motivate people. Table 1 provides
examples of prominent leadership styles from the last 2 centuries before the review moves to a
discussion of the history of decision-making, job satisfaction, and the study’s theoretical
framework.
23
Table 1
Leadership Theory Development
Leadership theory
Description
Great man theory
(Evolved around the
1840s)
Based on the belief that leaders are exceptional people who are born
with innate qualities and are destined to lead. The use of the term
“man” was intentional since, until the latter part of the 20th century,
leadership was thought of as a primarily male, military, and Western
concept. This led to the next school of trait theories.
Trait theory (1930s–
1940s)
Indicates the traits or qualities associated with leadership exist in
abundance and continue to be produced. They draw on virtually all the
adjectives in the dictionary that describe some positive or virtuous
human attribute, from ambition to zest for life.
Behaviorist theories
(1940s–1950s)
Focuses on what leaders actually do rather than on their qualities.
Different patterns of behavior are observed and categorized as “styles
of leadership.” This area has probably attracted the most attention from
practicing managers.
Contingency theory
(1960s)
A refinement of the situational viewpoint with a focus on identifying
the situational variables that best predict the most appropriate or
effective leadership style to fit the particular circumstances.
Situational
leadership (1970s)
Leadership is viewed as specific to the situation in which it is being
exercised. For example, though some situations may require an
autocratic style, others may need a more participative approach. It also
proposes that there may be differences in required leadership styles at
different levels in the same organization.
Transactional theory
(1970s)
Emphasizes the importance of the relationship between leader and
followers, focusing on the mutual benefits derived from a form of
“contract” through which the leader delivers such things as rewards or
recognition in return for the commitment or loyalty of the followers.
Transformational
theory (1970s)
The central concept here is change and the role of leadership in
envisioning and implementing the transformation of organizational
performance.
Authentic leadership
theory
Emphasizes building the leader’s legitimacy through honest
relationships with followers that value their input and are built on an
ethical foundation. Generally, authentic leaders are positive people with
truthful self-concepts who promote openness. By building trust and
generating enthusiastic support from their subordinates, authentic
leaders can improve individual and team performance
Note. Adapted from Exeter University Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre. p. 6, by
R. Bolden, J. Gosling, A. Marturano, & P. Dennison, 2003, Centre for Leadership Studies.
24
History of Decision-Making
According to Buchanan and O’Connell (2006), Chester Barnard (1938) first coined the
term decision-making in the last century after publishing the book, The Functions of the
Executives. Fernández (2010) expanded on Barnard’s perspective and functions of a leader and
decision-making by arguing that most people dislike leadership responsibilities. Hence,
organizations need exceptional workers who accept authority and the responsibility for decisionmaking to ensure the organizations are effective and productive. Langley et al. (1995) furthered
the research on decision-making by noting the following: (a) ambiguities in decision-making
surround relationships between commitment and action, (b) the decision-maker is opened up to
history and experience, and (c) the decision-making process is dynamic relationships as single
decisions are intertwined linkages of complex problems.
After Barnard (1938) laid the foundation, scholars such as James March, Herbert Simon,
and Henry Mintzberg added to the research involving decision-making and leadership. Simon
(1947) explored the delegation of authority and unity of command and how these management
functions are contradictory. Simon first published his doctoral dissertation on decision-making in
administrative organizations. His research showed organizational decisions are complex in
nature and influenced by many internal and external factors. Simon believed humans are an
uncomplicated phenomenon, and studied organizational decision-making with a focus on
decision-making agents, judgment, and limitations.
Drawing on new approaches to leadership and decision-making, Granville (1956)
explored the Hungarian crisis and the former Soviet Union’s decision-making process after the
invasion of Hungary to stop the revolution. During the crisis, Soviet leaders first wanted to quell
the crisis peacefully. However, the Soviet’s political leadership changed the decision and
25
invaded Hungary again because they thought the United States would intervene in Hungary. The
free radio broadcast provided false hope to the Hungarian people throughout Europe by
broadcasting that U.S. troops would support the revolution. These announcements created
uncertainty among political leaders in Moscow, but lacked credible evidence that decisionmakers in Washington were considering helping the revolution (D. S. Mason, 2005). The
analysis showed volatility and uncertainty affected political decision-makers in Moscow and
illustrated that decision-making is complex and external factors can hasten the process.
Farrar (1972) also studied decision-making during wartime and used research conducted
by Able (1941) and Russet (1962), who posited that decision-making during wartime was
neglected because of the following external factors: (a) population pressures, (b) business cycles,
and (c) mass psychoses. Policymakers at the U.S. Army War College routinely study the
Vietnam War strategic lessons to understand better presidential decision-making when using
military force to accomplish political objectives. For example, Cerami (1996) examined
Operation Rolling Thunder 1965, the Cambodian invasion in 1970, and the Easter Offensive and
Operation Linebacker in 1972. In each military operation, the U.S. Army War College analyzed
the political leader’s decision-making process and how specific individual approaches to
decision-making can affect the results and objectives. The review’s objective was to learn from
the past, present, and future so military and political leaders can sharpen their decision-making
skills in future military operations. Mitchell and Massoud (2009) elaborated on the military and
political decision-making process after evaluating the intelligence failures of the United States
and Iraq leading up to the Iraq Invasion in 2003. The senior political decision-makers were
highly experienced leaders with decades of military and political leadership roles, and Mitchell
and Massoud highlighted several policy errors that occurred before and during the Iraq War: (a)
26
viable options were ignored, (b) selective use of intelligence, (c) insufficient force, (d) a failure
to anticipate an insurgency, and (e) poorly executed postwar planning.
Current Literature on Decision-Making
The current study was designed to investigate whether there are relationships between
leadership styles, job satisfaction, and employee decision-making during a crisis. According to
Vaughan (1997) and Rosenthal (2003), the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion and the 9/11
terrorist attack in New York City make up most of the existing research and case studies
concerning leadership and decision-making during a crisis. Therefore, the current research was
designed to add to the existing literature by measuring leadership styles and employee decisionmaking skills during the COVID-19 crisis. According to Bruch and Feinberg (2017), scholars
have shown an interest in learning why and how people make decisions. Scientists primarily
study decision-making through the lens of cognitive science, which comprises behavioral
economics during the process (Bruch & Feinberg, 2017). Differences in decision-making are the
result of many factors, including leadership styles, habits, and cognitive abilities (Olcum &
Titrek, 2015). Evans et al. (2001) expected transformational leadership characteristics to surface
during a crisis such as the following: creating an organizational vision, sifting through large data
and information when making decisions, and possessing self-confidence in directing others. The
decision-making process is not a routine unitary event because the process can take on the
following factors: (a) can extend over a long period, (b) can change the organization, (c) can
solve problems, (d) can gather data, and (e) can create suitable alternatives (Olcum & Titrek,
2015).
According to Berekméri and Zafeiris (2020), knowledge is power, and effective decisionmaking can be a matter of life and death. However, individuals see problems differently and may
27
have different approaches to increase job satisfaction. Olcum and Titrek (2015) conducted a
study on the effects of school administrators’ decision-making styles and teachers’ job
satisfaction. Using the MSQ short form, they questioned 483 teachers and 167 administrators and
determined teachers’ job satisfaction levels increased when participating in decision-making
events. In general, teachers’ job satisfaction levels are high when they are allowed to participate
in activities as this keeps them invigorated when helping others. The study also showed
communication skills are important for leaders during the decision-making process and affect
employees’ overall morale and welfare.
The decision-making process is complex under normal circumstances, and a crisis may
contribute to complicating the process. According to Hadley et al. (2007), the C-LEAD more
accurately predicts decision-making difficulty during a crisis. The C-LEAD is a new instrument
that measures decision-making during a crisis when ambiguity, high stakes, and urgency are
present. Hadley et al. conducted six survey-based pilot studies illustrating the instrument
produced both internal and external validity. The pilot studies were the genesis for the
corresponding tests conducted in 2007 during a crisis along with different target populations: (a)
item development, (b) scale study with a multi-sector population, and (c) scale study with an
expert public health population.
Hadley et al.’s (2007) research focused on different targeted populations, allowing the
researchers to test across occupational sectors in a crisis simulation exercise. This allowed
Hadley et al. to measure decision-making self-efficacy in different types of occupational sectors
and different types of decision-making contexts. According to Hadley et al. (2009), the C-LEAD
is a reliable instrument tool that specifically evaluates crisis leaders where one has not existed
before. Additionally, the C-LEAD tool provides organizations an instrument to evaluate leader
28
training and development because it identifies leadership capabilities before a crisis (Combs &
Luthans, 2007; C. M. Pearson & Mitroff, 1993). Thus, because the C-LEAD has been shown to
exhibit internal and external reliability, it was used in the current study to ask employees in the
Mid-Atlantic region to rate their decision-making abilities during the pandemic.
Decision-Making Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1982) first defined self-efficacy as a personal judgment on how well an
individual can operate and function in certain situations. Bandura (1997) later defined selfefficacy as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required
to produce given attainments” (p. 3). According to Hadley et al. (2011), effective leadership and
sound decision-making are essential during any public health or safety crisis. After Hurricane
Katrina, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed leadership and management and
concluded leadership is essential when navigating through a crisis (Walker, 2007). In particular,
practical decision-making self-efficacy can ensure decisions are made quickly and accurately,
regardless of the pressure and stress linked with a crisis (C. M. Pearson & Clair, 1998). After the
GAO published the report in 2007, researchers at the Center for Public leadership at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government developed the C-LEAD to assess decision-making aptitude. The
Center for Public Leadership researchers developed the following recommendations for
leadership and decision-making: (a) do not nominate leaders only because of rank or position,
and (b) nominate leaders during a crisis who can make decisions quickly and can process
information.
To confirm whether the C-LEAD was reliable, Hadley et al. (2011) interviewed 50
government employees who all successfully led their teams during a crisis. The interviews and
answers helped the Harvard scholars create the C-LEAD instrument to assess decision-making
29
self-efficacy during a crisis. Walker (2007) also stated crisis leadership practice might not be
enough, so the C-LEAD predicts how well someone can process information. Currently, there is
a dearth of research involving the C-LEAD and its relationship to leadership styles, so the
current research was designed to explore new territory with decision-making self-efficacy. The
following paragraphs present discussions of the latest dissertations and peer-reviewed articles
involving the C-LEAD and decision-making self-efficacy.
Arnatt and Beyerlein (2014) examined leadership characteristics for the following law
enforcement special operations teams: (a) Special Weapons and Tactics Teams, (b) Swift HRT,
and (c) Strategic Response Teams. The purpose of the study was to examine decision-making
self-efficacy. The theoretical framework for this research focused on authentic leadership,
emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy as underlying concepts for effective leadership during
stressful situations. The findings showed members and leaders differed in their responses
because of relational transparency, moral and ethical reasoning, sociability, and disaster selfefficacy (Arnatt & Beyerlein, 2014). The result of the t test comparison between leaders and
members was statistically significant as team leaders scored higher than employees on disaster
self-efficacy. The results also highlighted a difference between leaders and employees within the
authentic relationship domain. Arnatt and Beyerlein posited leaders might exhibit idealized
leadership behaviors, so there is no statistical relationship between authentic leadership and
moral and ethical conduct. Overall, the study revealed leaders may be promoted to more senior
level positions because of their abilities to use certain attributes and skills in the decision-making
process.
Typhoon Yolanda made landfall on the Philippines islands in 2013 and is considered the
strongest recorded typhoon in history with a signal level 4 rating and 115 mile per hour winds for
30
up to 12 hours. Gaddi (2018) explored leadership practices and responsibilities during this
disaster as the typhoon claimed thousands of lives and caused millions in property damage. The
C-LEAD scale was used to investigate government leaders’ decision-making responsibilities
surrounding disaster management in the Philippines. The researchers questioned six Filipino
government leaders to participate in investigating the following: (a) the efficiency of government
leaders’ handling during the typhoon, and (b) the leadership styles of key leaders using the CLEAD instrument. The results indicated the Filipino officials practiced transformative
leadership––more specifically, challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to
act, model the way, and encourage the heart. Last, Gaddi confirmed the leaders used the
transformative leadership style from the LPI as an effective leadership style for effective
decision-making.
Leadership Styles and Decision-Making
The research-based evidence involving leadership styles during a crisis uncovered
important information for leaders to use when leading through a crisis. For example, Vroom
(2003) researched leadership and decision-making and published a report on 400 decisions made
by managers working in medium to large size organizations in the United States. The research
showed managers made poor decisions almost 50% of the time, even with proper training and
oversight. According to Hasan (2017), a crisis is an unplanned event or process that requires an
entire organization to harness its capabilities to mitigate the damage to resources and assets.
Hasan investigated the effectiveness of leadership styles during a crisis in Erbil, Iraq. More
specifically, Hasan collected data to determine whether transformational, transactional, or
charismatic leadership affected leadership. A total of 630 participants were involved in this
quantitative study and results showed charismatic leadership had the highest value on leadership
31
styles and effective crisis management. The study’s practical implementation references
governmental or private institutions to identify employees who exhibit charismatic leadership
styles if a crisis should arise.
Anwar (2021) examined the relationship between leadership styles and effective
leadership when leading during a crisis in private businesses in Kurdistan companies. The study
included 130 participants in Kurdistan to determine whether the transformational, transactional,
or charismatic leadership styles had a relationship to effective leadership. According to Anwar,
leading through a crisis requires effective communication, so various stages of a crisis will
require specific leadership skills. This study differed from Hasan’s (2017) article, and the
transformational leadership style was deemed the most appropriate during a crisis, followed by
the charismatic style. Moreover, the research determined being open to innovation is a key
characteristic during a crisis when fundamental change is required.
Alkhrabsheh et al. (2014) investigated the mediating roles of leadership styles and the
relationship between characteristics of decision-making styles. The researchers studied 847
Jordanian Civil Defense officers to determine mediating roles on leadership styles and decisionmaking during a crisis. The results showed a correlation between leadership styles, decisionmaking styles, and a crisis. According to Alkhrabsheh et al., Jordanian officials perceived their
leaders as transactional when pressed for time and forced to make restrictive decisions. However,
transformational leaders were preferred during comprehensive decision-making processes, which
mediates the characteristics of a crisis and decision-making. Therefore, the researchers
concluded that the transformational and transactional leadership styles partially mediate the
relationship between characteristics of crisis and decision-making styles for Jordanian officers.
However, the results showed transformational leaders are more effective than are transactional
32
leaders, but further research is needed to determine whether implementing these leadership styles
in the Jordanian officer ranks is beneficial. The following section covers leadership in the hotel
industry by analyzing current literature and influential factors to elaborate on leadership.
Leadership in the Hotel Industry
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused challenges to the role of leadership in relation to
employee decision-making self-efficacy and job satisfaction in the hotel industry. Heimerl et al.
(2020) researched job satisfaction and influencing factors in the hotel industry by surveying 345
employees in the alpine ski districts. Their data analysis directly related to leadership and
positive employee relations, adherence to duty roster, and personal development directly
affecting job satisfaction. The hotel industry relies heavily on human resources, and the COVID19 pandemic has caused significant financial turmoil throughout the country as well as the MidAtlantic region because hotels depend on human factors to provide goods and services (AboMurad et al., 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic caused uncertainty in the hotel industry in terms
of employee safety, and a considerable gap in the literature exists on how to promote employee
safety during a crisis (Zhang et al., 2020). The COVID-19 crisis directly affects hotel success
because when tourism stops, hotels become unoccupied, which leads to layoffs and business
closures. An important point to remember is that the world’s interconnectedness causes frequent
worldwide travel, which places hotel staff and guests at extreme risk for airborne viruses.
The medical hotel industry is a growing industry because it is becoming more common
for people to fly domestically or internationally for healthcare and surgeries (Han & Hwang,
2013). According to Heung et al. (2011), the medical hotel tourism industry has become one of
the fastest-growing industries in the world. Recent studies confirmed the medical hotel industry
generates an estimated $60 billion annually; this reflects a 20% increase from prior years as more
33
countries are pursuing opportunities in this lucrative market (Han & Hwang, 2013; Han & Hyun,
2014). Han and Hwang (2013) explained that medical/healthcare tourism is made up of lodging,
clinics, and other accommodations, as cosmetic surgery has become increasingly popular over
the last decade. However, COVID-19 has restricted domestic and international air travel, and
some medical facilities postponed non-emergency surgeries, so the current financial impact is
unknown.
A strong leader is considered indispensable for organizations during a crisis, and leaders
push their teams to set goals and provide moral support for individuals and groups (Tiwari &
Singh, 2021). Research has shown employees prefer empathetic and approachable leaders to
support the team during a crisis (Tiwari & Singh, 2021). Leading through the COVID-19
pandemic presents challenges for leaders in the hotel industry, and the following are several
examples of how much past crises have affected governments and businesses. According to
Brown et al. (2017), in 2001, foot and mouth disease cost the United Kingdom between $3.3 and
$4.2 billion USD, affecting the hotel industry’s food chain. The SARS epidemic caused tourism
to drop by 50% worldwide, and Hurricane Katrina caused 1,409 tourism and hospitality
businesses to close permanently. Brown et al. stated Hurricane Katrina cost the leisure and hotel
industry $15.2 million per day. Consequently, living through a crisis in turbulent times recently
caused scholars to reexamine leadership styles because managing through a crisis is paramount
for organizational survivability in the hotel industry (Murad & Khrasheh, 2019).
Murad and Khrasheh (2019) posited organizational leaders are more concerned than ever
about building internal organizational capabilities, including the flexibility to manage a crisis in
unpredictable and dynamic times. Many scholars have examined the concept of disaster and
crisis in the tourism industry, but the definition has changed over time (Brown et al., 2017).
34
Brown et al. (2017) stated the overall body of literature on crisis and hotels has increased over
the last 2 decades, but noted more research is needed. Moreover, the hotel industry is considered
the central pillar of the hospitality industry. However, research involving a crisis in the hotel
industry revealed 82% of strategies are focused on recovery and response and not on prevention
and preparation (Murad & Khrasheh, 2019). Creating leadership development programs before a
crisis and determining which leadership styles affect employee decision-making self-efficacy and
job satisfaction could be important information for HRD.
A majority of the research analyzing the hotel industry focused on employee turnover
(Murad & Khrabsheh, 2019). The relatively high level of employee turnover in the hotel industry
is even higher when compared to other industries, and low-level job satisfaction is the primary
reason for turnover (Heimerl et al., 2020). Employee job satisfaction is important to hotel
industry research as high job satisfaction levels correspond to fewer absences, less turnover, and
lower sickness records (Heimerl et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic affects all these
employee-related factors; hotel employees are at immediate risk because tiny droplets can spread
throughout the respiratory system with close contact, especially as the Delta variant has become
more contagious. This is precisely why so many hotels were closed in the Mid-Atlantic region
because of the pandemic’s virulent strain and densely populated urban areas such as New York
City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, DC (Zhang et al., 2020). Therefore, keeping
employees safe during the COVID-19 epidemic is important for hotel leadership, and Zhang et
al. (2020) discovered leadership positively affects employee safety behavior (i.e., compliance,
participation, and adaptation).
According to Alzoubi and Jaaffar (2020), hotels are critical players in tourist operations,
and the effects of a crisis on tourism and business-related damage are interlinked. They argued
35
hotel leaders must understand how to operate more efficiently during a crisis, and leadership
styles can play an important role. Tran (2017) stated leadership styles correspond to employee
behaviors, and leadership directly supports the organization in reaching strategic goals and
milestones, especially during a crisis. Heimerl et al. (2020) postulated that the hotel industry’s
significant job satisfaction driver is the employee–supervisor relationship. Their research showed
the hotel industry loses valuable and motivated employees when working conditions are kept
unsafe. Unsatisfactory working conditions lead to job stress, family conflicts, time pressure,
emotional exhaustion, and ultimately employee turnover, which ties directly to low job
satisfaction levels (Heimerl et al., 2020).
Seminal Research on Job Satisfaction
The seminal research involving job satisfaction in the workplace dates back to research
conducted by Professor George Elton Mayo (1924–1932) at the Western Electric Company’s
Plant based out of Chicago, Illinois. Job satisfaction has been studied over the last century, and
yet there is much to learn about what motivates employees and what internal and external factors
affect job satisfaction. Mayo’s (1933) Hawthorne study was the first known experiment to
evaluate employee job satisfaction, and the study was broken down into three independent
sections for the 12,000 employees. Professor Mayo initially thought employee job satisfaction
increased with decision-making and when short-term organizational incentives were awarded.
The study tested whether job satisfaction and performance increased with changing the light
illumination in the industrial setting. According to Franke and Kaul (1978), the Hawthorne
experiment is considered the most important social science experiment ever conducted in an
industrial setting. The initial results regarding job satisfaction were inconclusive as many of the
36
post-interviews showed job satisfaction can be determined by outside factors, community
factors, and home life.
After the Hawthorne research, Hoppock (1935) expanded on research studying job
satisfaction and published the first comprehensive study on employee job satisfaction. This
research focused on job satisfaction involving the following factors: (a) fatigue, (b) monotony,
(c) working conditions, (d) supervision, and (e) achievement. Work motivation and job
satisfaction have been studied for decades, and the results can be significant for business
decisions. For example, seminal research conducted by Frederick Herzberg called the
motivation-hygiene theory, studied 139 Finnish employees working in a warehouse analyzing
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1965). The two methods of hygiene factors
(intrinsic) and motivators (extrinsic) both influence employee behavior. Herzberg (1965)
concluded this two-factor theory were not opposite extremes, but two different factors caused by
various reasons (Furnham et al., 2009). Herzberg (1965) expanded on these job satisfaction
factors and classified these groups as “hygiene factors” as employee job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction vary between employees for various reasons. The seminal research conducted by
Hoppock (1935) and Herzberg et al. (1959) was pivotal for future research involving job
satisfaction as some different variables and circumstances can affect job satisfaction. For
example, Downey et al. (1975) tested the influential factors affecting job satisfaction involving
organizational climate and interactions with individual personalities, and discovered individuals
who fit into the work environment perform at a higher rate and are more satisfied than are
individuals who do not fit into the culture.
Downey et al. (1975) measured the organizational climate in the following six sections:
(a) decision-making, (b) warmth, (c) risk, (d) openness, (e) rewards, and (f) structure. The
37
personality factors only consisted of self-confidence and sociability and were tested using the
Bereuter Personality Inventory (BPI). The findings illustrated job satisfaction is interrelated with
personality characteristics and the perceived environment (organizational climate/culture).
Therefore, individual needs (internal and external factors) and organizational climate can predict
job satisfaction and performance. For example, Locke (1976) used seminal research from the
1930s as a conceptual framework to add to the job satisfaction knowledge. During this research
examination, he considered the following to be the most important factors when examining
employee job satisfaction: (a) work, (b) pay, (c) promotion, (d) verbal recognition, and (e)
working conditions. Currently, these examples are associated with internal and external job
satisfaction levels, but job satisfaction is complex and can be determined by personality,
emotion, and genetics (Judge et al., 2002; Rowe, 1987; H. M. Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The
following sections focus on the current literature on job satisfaction and a multitude of job
satisfaction subjects.
Current Literature on Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a critical business factor as it is under constant pressure from
contemporary world political, cultural, economic, and environmental factors (Kužnin & Walker,
2017). Overall job satisfaction refers to whether the organizational climate meets employees’
needs, values, and wants and the individual reactions are favorable to each particular
environment (Sunday, 2016). According to Pawirosumarto et al. (2017), leadership styles and
culture strongly relate to positive job satisfaction levels in Parador Hotels and Resorts in
Indonesia. Moreover, employee values, attitudes, and personalities undoubtedly influence work
satisfaction levels and work motivation. Their research illuminated the correlation between these
factors and employee motivation, and showed the leader’s style directly influences employee
38
behavior and job satisfaction. Environmental and genetic factors account for 30% of employee
job satisfaction (Furnham et al., 2009). A leader’s style and practical implications directly relate
to employee well-being concerning a plethora of issues, including job satisfaction and motivation
(Robertson et al., 2014). According to Idris et al. (2018), job satisfaction is a pleasant emotional
attitude reflected with positive performance, mostly enjoyed inside and outside the work
environment.
It is vital for organizational leaders to fully understand whether employees are happy and
satisfied and how their leadership style affects employees, especially during a crisis (Moynihan
& Pandey, 2007). Job satisfaction is an optimistic or pessimistic evaluation of an employee’s
mention of the overall job (Sehar & Alwi, 2019). The literature concerning job satisfaction and
employee happiness seems murky and ambiguous, and some literature supports the relationship
between the two factors. For example, Matthews et al. (2018) suggested there is an inconclusive
linkage between employee attitudes, job performance, and job satisfaction. Leadership is
essential in assisting employees in responding to organizational pressure, so organizations can
effectively report higher-level motivation factors for employees, directly and indirectly,
influence organizational behaviors (Vignoli et al., 2018).
Worker satisfaction depends on individual goal fulfillment. Often, worker satisfaction is
driven or derived from a positive leadership influence in the workplace, even when working in
an inferior job or facing fewer advancement opportunities. Leadership plays a decisive role,
indirectly influencing employees in the workplace. According to Manning (2018),
transformational leadership helps achieve awareness of benefits, and the results correspond;
worker satisfaction in this contemporary era varies from prior years. Leaders are significant
assets for organizations, with more leaders concentrating on job satisfaction and commitment.
39
Gratification and achievement perceptions between women and men do not show substantial
differences, and there are no significant variances between them. However, Clerkin (2017)
questioned 745 executives on why women outperform their male counterparts regarding
employee job satisfaction. The research showed women leaders were associated with the
following: (a) increased job satisfaction, (b) increased organizational dedication, and (c)
decreased burnout. Job satisfaction affects all organizations, and leaders learn to adopt practices
to communicate effectively, challenge the process, inspire, and follow the organization’s vision.
According to Escortell et al. (2020), transformational leadership has become a good management
tool to increase job satisfaction, and this stems from three dimensions: (a) individualized
consideration, (b) intellectual stimulation, and (c) idealized influence.
There has been much research on the effects of age and gender on job satisfaction.
Frances Burks found age as a variable affects job satisfaction from a study entitled, “What is the
relationship between job satisfaction and leadership” (Iroegbu, 2015). The research showed older
workers seemed more intrinsically satisfied with their jobs than did younger employees (Iroegbu,
2015). Though compensation and benefits are still widely regarded as the most important
considerations for employees, these factors were not at the top of employees’ lists of concerns in
one survey (Osman, 2008). In-depth knowledge of job satisfaction issues was provided by
follow-up surveys on factors such as job security, job benefits, and pay. This research reinforced
the assumption that though most workers are reasonably happy with their jobs, job satisfaction
means different things for different individuals depending on their age, sex, or other
demographic differences (Osman, 2008).
Research has shown there is a correlation between age and job satisfaction, although the
extent of the relationship is not exact or fully understood (Osman, 2008). Some findings
40
indicated job satisfaction increases with age, with 75 individuals showing expectations and job
characteristics unchanged. The characteristics of the individual and the job characteristics usually
work together to create the critical values that affect job satisfaction between genders (Osman,
2008). Changing demographics, in many respects, have a significant impact on job satisfaction.
Older workers (Baby Boomers born between 1945 and 1964) who have no disabilities are more
likely to postpone retirement and want continued job security and benefits (Osman, 2008). This
would reduce organizational costs and potentially balance the advantages and disadvantages of
maintaining an older workforce. Results of a Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)
study showed the potential for increased age discrimination cases is high as businesses try to
reduce their workers’ compensation costs by increasing or eliminating these benefits (Osman,
2008). Issues such as these might have an impact on workers’ job satisfaction.
Some studies have found significant differences between the genders as they apply to the
workplace (Emanuel et al., 2018). Traditionally, men are viewed as the primary source of family
income, whereas women focus more on the family role (Emanuel et al., 2018). Men are more
likely to feel the pressure of maintaining their position to support the family, as explained in
gender role theory (Emanuel et al., 2018). One study on gender differences and job satisfaction
among pharmacists found significant differences in overall job satisfaction across the genders
(Carvajal et al., 2018). It is also possible that women may be more satisfied because of their
focus on the family environment’s role rather than on their roles as employees and can draw
additional satisfaction from their home life (Veroff et al., 1981). Additionally, men and women
may have different perceived expectations and use different comparison groups to arrive at job
satisfaction conclusions (Veroff et al., 1981).
41
Theoretical Framework
Scholars have studied the organizational benefits surrounding the transformational and
transactional leadership theories for decades, and the literature has produced a plethora of
information explaining effective leadership. For example, Bass (1985) discussed
transformational and transactional leaders’ roles and how transactional leaders work within the
organizational culture, whereas transformational leaders try to change the culture. During a pilot
study of 70 male executives, transformational leaders raised the level of awareness among
employees for significant issues and transcended employees’ self-interest for the organization’s
greater good (Bass, 1985). Confidence is an excellent characteristic for leaders to exhibit, and
during a crisis, leaders should maintain confidence in their ability and leadership skills (Bass,
1985). Transformational leaders can inspire employees, but transactional leaders reward and
punish employees based on work performance (Tran, 2017). Laissez-faire leaders wait for
problems to arise and are less engaged than are those employing the transformational and
transactional leadership styles.
According to Fragouli (2020), leaders must remain calm during a crisis and have the selfconfidence to keep employees informed and take responsibility for their actions. An effective
leader must know oneself and encourage empathy, compassion, and creativity to help others and
transcend a new reality (Gray & Brymer, 2006). Transformational leadership has traditionally
been called charismatic leadership or inspirational leadership, and transactional leadership has
also been called the “traditional form” of leadership, which follows traditional leader–follower
relationships (Gray & Brymer, 2006). Charismatic leadership evolved over the century, and the
following section provides a detailed explanation of the subject matter experts responsible for the
charismatic and transformational leadership evolution process. The theoretical framework
42
includes transformational leadership, and Figure 1 from Bass and Avolio (2004) depicts the four
Is and the main features of this theory: (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c)
intellectual stimulation, and (d) individual consideration.
Figure 1
Features of Transformational Leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2004)
According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership qualities can be achieved in any of
the following three ways:
ï‚·
Learn how to raise levels of self-awareness and consciousness.
ï‚·
Forsake one’s self-interest for the betterment of the team.
ï‚·
Expand wants and needs and alter Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs.
Bass (1985) stated a notable difference between transformational and transactional is how
these leadership styles operate within the organizational structure. For example, transactional
leadership operates effectively within the organizational culture, whereas transformational
leadership changes the culture. Figure 2 provides the theoretical model for this research of the
relationships between leadership styles and employee decision-making self-efficacy and job
satisfaction as applied to transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles.
43
Figure 2
Theoretical Framework
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has been one of the central and most influential leadership
models over the last 40 years (Berkovich, 2016). According to Letwin et al. (2016), leadership
covers a broad range of topics and determines the supervisor–employee relationship. A recent
study conducted by Lan et al. (2019) showed transformational leadership positively influenced
job satisfaction in Taiwan after testing 400 new Taipei City Cram school faculty members. The
results indicated inspiring speech and compliments positively influenced the employees’
behaviors; their research offered practical implications to change leadership styles to increase
employee job satisfaction. Also, empirical evidence shows transformational leadership strongly
influences employee empowerment, which increases employee job satisfaction (Boamah et al.,
2018).
Transformational leadership can be considered one of the most influential leadership
theories developed this century; not until recently has research begun to reveal the impacts on
employee knowledge sharing, empowerment, and organizational commitment (Matzler et al.,
2013). Research has shown transformational leaders can improve psychological performance of
44
employees, reduce employee stress, and improve attitudinal behaviors (ÅžeÅŸen et al., 2019).
Transformational leadership’s advantages focus on team building and motivating and building
employees during times of change and turbulence (Ingram, 2019). Another critical aspect is
psychological empowerment and the organizational culture’s mediating effect. Pradhan et al.
(2017) examined a sample of 300 respondents in the Indian retail industry to understand the
impacts on leadership styles. The results produced positive results with the transformational
leadership style to increase employee psychological empowerment (Pradhan et al., 2017). Their
study involved a random sample of 378 nurses in Ontario, Canada, using a cross-sectional study
and found managers use transformational behaviors to increase safety outcomes for employees
and patients.
Research conducted by Boamah et al. (2018) provided critical evidence of how
leadership styles can affect employee safety, leading to job satisfaction. Transformational
leadership styles develop psychological capital, and research conducted by ÅžeÅŸen et al. (2019)
discovered leaders with transformational attributes positivel…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!