INTRODUCTION

Job satisfaction is an extensively researched topic (Allen, Drevs, & Ruhe, 1999; Kleinman, 2004; Robbins, 1998; Spector, 1997; Yukl, 1998). Of particular interest is the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. For the individual, job dissatisfaction can result in feelings of helplessness, burnout, resentment, anger, and fatigue (Knoop, 1987; Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). Further, these emotions can lead to the following behaviors: aggression, regression, complaining, fighting, psychological withdrawal, and leaving the agency (Knoop, 1987; Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). With these emotions and behaviors, poor physical and mental health may ensue. From a management perspective, these emotions can lead to decreased employee performance, tardiness, absenteeism, turnover, early retirements, and strikes (Ribelin, 2003; Robbins, 1998).

While understanding the reasons for changing employment are critical for organizations, discerning the relationship of leadership style on job satisfaction is of paramount concern. Working with a leader who does not provide support, show consideration, or engages in hostile behaviors can be stressful for employees (Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). Negative leader-employee interactions can result in decreased pleasure with work, questioning one’s skill on the job, reacting harshly to the leader, and leaving the agency (Chen & Spector, 1991). The quality of the leader-employee relationship has an impact on the employee’s self-esteem (Brockner, 1988; DeCremer, 2003) and job satisfaction (Chen & Spector, 1991). The costs to the agency can be quite high in terms of worker stress, reduced productivity, increased absenteeism, and turnover (Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994; Ribelin, 2003).

Considerate leaders, also known as expressive leaders because they show concern for people, have been found to facilitate a group with higher productivity and higher performance (Singh, 1998). In addition, leadership consideration (expressive leadership) is more conducive to job satisfaction (Singh & Pestonjee, 1974; Spector, 1985). On the other side of the coin, task structured leaders, also known as instrumental leaders, show less concern for employees and are high on initiating structure. “Leader behavior characterized as high on initiating structure led to greater rates of grievances, absenteeism, and turnover and lower levels of job satisfaction for workers performing routine tasks” (Robbins, 1998, p. 350).

Despite the fact that leadership has been a widely researched topic (Bass, 1990; Fiedler & Chemers, 1982; Field, 2002; Robbins, 1998; Ruvolo, Petersen, & LeBoeuf, 2004; Yukl, 1998; Zaleznick, 1992), very little attention has been directed toward the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction in nonprofit agencies. To date, research has focused on for-profit industries and the military (Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1987). The problem that this pilot study addresses is leadership style, a consideration (expressive) orientation, and structured (instrumental) orientation, in relation to employee job satisfaction in the nonprofit arena.

With respect to child care organizations, the turnover rate, a reflection of job dissatisfaction, ranges from 30-50% per year (Ramsburg & Montanelli, 1999). This rate is alarmingly high, especially when compared to the annual turnover rate of 7% among elementary school teachers (Whitebook & Bellm, 1999). The consequences of dissatisfied child care workers is that they develop an intent to leave the job. The consequences are high in terms of the impact on the organization as well as the children and families involved with the center. The evidence is quite extensive indicating that the high turnover rate of child care workers is a threat to quality care of children (Todd & Deery-Schmitt, 1996). For instance, child care centers with high turnover have higher rates of children being more aggressive with peers, more withdrawn, and spending more time unoccupied (Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995; Manlove & Guzell, 1997). On the other hand, children who experience stability in the quality of care they receive demonstrate more secure attachments, higher complexity of play, higher language development, and higher school achievement (Todd & Deery-Schmitt, 1996). Child care worker job satisfaction is more of a concern today, as the recent changes in welfare programs will result in greater numbers of children needing quality child care.

Although the relationship between concern for employees and job satisfaction is not always clear, research in this area generally indicates that consideration is more highly related to satisfaction than a task structured style of leadership (Wilkerson & Wagner, 1993). Given that much of what is known of the impact of leadership style comes from studies of for-profit agencies, the purpose of this research is to focus on the influence of leadership style on employee job satisfaction in one nonprofit arena, the child care industry. Some current issues in the quality of child care services involve the shortage of highly qualified directors and leaders (Borge, Hartman, & Strom, 1996; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). Thus, leadership style can directly affect not only employee satisfaction and growth, but also the well being of the children and families. Job dissatisfaction and transition issues caused by turnover will lead to poor quality of care and may negatively affect children’s growth and development. This research examined the impact of the director’s leadership style, consideration orientation, and structure orientation, on child care worker job satisfaction on a global level as well as satisfaction with supervision.

The objective of this research is to understand the impact of leadership style on employee job satisfaction in an effort to improve leader-employee relations in nonprofit child care settings. Since turnover rates, separation costs, vacancy costs, and training costs are high in child care centers (Vickers, 2002), providing strategies for increasing job satisfaction will lead to a more stable environment for children and their families, promote positive leader member relations, and strengthen the organizational climate. Since leadership style can critically influence employee satisfaction, this study is of significant importance in promoting social change. Specifically, it focuses on a unique industry, nonprofit child care agencies, a little researched area in terms of leadership style.

This research is valuable in terms of providing recommendations for child care leadership training programs, another social change component. Since leadership style in relation to job satisfaction in nonprofit agencies has not received much attention in professional literature, this pilot study adds to the field of organizational psychology by providing research on this unique setting and distinguishes it from studies of leadership style based in for-profit or military organizations. Understanding the relationship between the director’s leadership style on child care workers’ job satisfaction may lead to a stronger organizational climate, reduce turnover, engender greater trust of children and their families, promote positive child development, and provide for a stronger fiscal base for the agency.

METHODOLOGY

The pilot study sample was obtained through the leadership committee of the Early Childhood Education Quality Council (ECEQC in Rochester, New York. After getting permission from the ECEQC chair to talk to the members, affiliated directors were contacted. The directors, in turn, gave permission to use their center and respective employees as a research site. Ten out of 24 centers agreed to participate in the study (42%); however, two centers were dropped from the study because they changed director leadership, leaving eight centers participating in the study. The LOQ, JSS, and demographic data sheets were administered during a weekly staff meeting and collected. The data was extracted and recorded in Excel, and subsequently reduced. Additionally, the data was analyzed using Excel functions and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 11.0.

Center Directors. The directors from the participating centers completed the LOQ and the demographic data sheet. The average age of the director sample was 44.4, with a range of 31 to 56 years. All participating directors were White females with college degrees. Per the requirement of this research, the directors worked for their respective child care center for at least three years. The average number of years directing child care centers was 10.86 with a range of 3 to 32 years. The education and credentials of the directors as well as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAYEC) accreditation status of their center are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Director Credentials and NAYEC Accreditation Status

Center	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Degree	MA	BA	BS	CDA	MA	MA	BS	MA
Major	Early Child	Elm. Ed.	Psyc. & Bio	Early Child	Cult. & Pol.	Admin	Nursing	Cult. & Pol .
Accred.	Yes	Yes	Applied	Unk.	Yes	Unk.	No	Yes

Child care Workers. From the participating centers, there were a total of 97 child care workers who volunteered to complete the JSS. The total sample of child care workers was 174, which gives a return rate of 56% (three surveys were not included as the information was not completed on the reverse side of the JSS form). The average age of the child care workers was 36 years with a range of 18 to 83 years. Of the sample of child care workers, 46% were Black, 38% were White, 14% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian and Other. Table 3-A summarizes the child care worker demographic data of all child care workers employed at the participating centers.

Table 3-A

Child care Worker Demographic Data by Center

 

Center	1	2			3	4	5	6	7	8
# Workers	18		20	29		24	16	10	21	40
# Sampled	7		7	17		11	6	5	8	33
% of Total	38.4		3.5	58.6		45.8	37.5	50.0	38.1	82.5
Avg. Age	45.2		33.3	32.7		38.1	37.6	30.2	34.3	30.4
White	9		2	4		5	16	0	14	10
Black	3		15	22		14	0	3	3	20
Hispanic	6		3	2		5	0	1	2	10
Other	0		0	0		0	0	0	1	0

Of the child care workers from the participating centers, 50% had their high school diploma, 24% had their bachelor’s degree, 14% had their associate’s degree, 8% had their CDA (Child Development Associate), and 4% had their master’s degree. The people that work in the child care industry do not reflect the regular education industry where everyone has at least a bachelor’s degree (NCES, 1996). Table 3-B summarizes the child care worker educational data.

Table 3-B

Child care Worker Education Demographic Data by Center

 

Center	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Total	%
High School	7	5	13	5	18	16	2	23	89	50
Associates	1	2	3	5	2	2	3	7	25	14
CDA	5	0	0	0	0	0	5	8	18	8
Bachelors	4	1	6	6	6	1	7	4	35	24
Masters	0	0	1	0	1	1	4	0	7	4
Total	17	8	23	16	27	20	21	42	174	100

Results and Data Analyses

Descriptive Statistics. This section contains the descriptive statistics and analyses of the areas of focus that were the subject of the research questions in this study. Descriptive analyses were conducted to clarify relationships between the LOQ scales and JSS global scores and supervision subscale scores of the JSS. Table 4 presents a summary of the descriptive statistics on these dimensions.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics of LOQ and JSS Results

Source	n	Mean	SD	Maximum	Minimum
LOQ Consideration	8	54.39	4.94	60	42
LOQ Structure	8	37.04	6.10	50	28
JSS Global Score	94	135.61	24.48	187	66
JSS Supervisor Score	94	18.28	5.05	24	5

Based on LOQ normative data for directors (Fleishman, 1996), consideration scores of 53.2 and above were classified as being high consideration (HC), while those below were characterized as low consideration (LC). Structure scores of 47.9 and above were classified as being high structure (HS), while those below were characterized as low structure (LS). For this study, the mean LOQ score for directors was 53.1, generally indicating that on the average, the directors were high consideration, in fact, five out of eight directors fell above the cutoff score of 53.2. The mean structure score was 38.6, indicating that the directors were low in structure, with seven out of the eight directors classified as low in structure. Table 5 lists the LOQ scores by center.

Table 5

LOQ Scores by Center

Center	Consideration	Structure	Style
1	60	28	HC-LS
2	42	45	LC-LS
3	54	37	HC-LS
4	56	33	HC-LS
5	60	47	HC-LS
6	48	35	LC-LS
7	48	50	LC-HS
8	57	34	HC-LS
Mean LOQ	53.1	38.6	LC-LS
Range	42-60	28-50
SD	4.94	6.10

Based on the cutoff scores, no center director had a high consideration, high structure (HC-HS) leadership style. The director from Center #7 had a leadership style that was low in consideration and high in structure (LC-HS: 12.5% of the sample). The directors from Centers #2 and 6 had leadership styles characterized by low consideration and low structure (LC-LS: 25% of the sample). Most directors (Centers # 1, 3, 4, 5, 8) had a style characterized by high consideration and low structure. The HC-LS style characterized 62.5% of the sample of directors. In Table 6, the centers are broken down based on the consideration and structure dimensions.

Table 6

Break-out of Centers on Consideration and Structure Dimensions

Variable	High Consideration	Low Consideration
High Structure	None (0%)	Center 7 (12.5%)
Low Structure	Centers 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 (62.5%)	Centers 2, 6 (25%)

Fisher’s Exact Test. Given that the requirement of the Chi Square Test was not met, Fisher’s Exact Test was used to determine if there was a pattern to the leadership styles among the center directors (Agresti & Finlay, 1986). No significant patterns emerged for the directors participating in the study on consideration and structure (p<.38). Table 7 outlines the results of Fisher’s Exact Test.

Table 7

Fisher’s Exact Test of Leadership Style

Source	Value	df	Asym. Sig. 2-sided	Exact Sig. 2-sided	Exact Sig.1-sided
Pearson Chi-Square	1.91	1	-.17
Continuity Correction	.08	1	.78
Likelihood Ratio		1	.14
Fisher’s Exact Test				.38	.38
# Valid Cases	8

Chi Square Analysis. Given that there appeared to be a grouping of LOQ scores for high versus low structure, a Chi Square analysis was completed. There was a trend in that significantly more directors were low structure as compared to high structure (p<.03). The proportion of high versus low consideration scores was not significance (p<.48). Table 8 lists the Chi Square results.

Table 8

Chi Square Results of Leadership Style

Variable	Consideration	Structure
Chi-Square	.50	4.50
df	1	1
Asymp. Sig.	.48	.03

Research Question 1: The question asked if there was a relationship between the consideration and structure scales on the LOQ. To determine the relationship between consideration and structure, a multiple correlational analysis was applied to all variables. There was a significant negative correlation between leadership consideration and leadership structure (r = -.585, n = 94, p<.01). This indicates that as consideration goes up, structure goes down. Given the small sample size (N=8), a bivariate correlational analysis was run on the consideration and structure LOQ scores. The resulting correlation between these two variables was not significant (r=-.458, n=8, p<.253).

Research Questions 2-5: Questions 2 through 5 examine the impact of leader consideration and structure on the LOQ and JSS global job satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision scores. The analysis for each of the research questions is listed as follows:

Leadership Style and Global Job Satisfaction. Questions 2 and 4 examine the influence of leadership consideration and structure scores (LOQ) on global job satisfaction scores (JSS). The second question ascertains if there is a relationship between a child care director’s consideration style, as determined by the LOQ, and the child care workers’ level of job satisfaction, as determined by the global score on the JSS. To test the relationship between the director’s consideration leadership style and the child care workers’ overall job satisfaction, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables. There was no significant correlation. This means that there is no apparent relationship between a director’s global job satisfaction and consideration as measured by the JSS and LOQ, respectively.

The fourth research question asks if there is a relationship between a child care director’s leadership structure orientation, as determined by the LOQ, and the child care workers’ level of job satisfaction, as determined by the global score on the JSS. To test the relationship between the director’s structure orientation and the child care workers’ global job satisfaction, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables. There was a significant positive correlation between leadership structure and global job satisfaction (r = .597, n = 94, p<.01). This appears to indicate that a director’s leadership structure and the child care workers’ global job satisfaction are positively correlated—that as the director’s leadership structure score increases, the child care worker’s level of job satisfaction increases. Table 9 lists the correlations between LOQ Factors and JSS Factors.

Table 9

Correlations between LOQ Factors and JSS Factors

Variable	LOQ Consideration	LOQ Structure
JSS Global Job Satisfaction	-.124	.597 **
JSS Supervisor Satisfaction	-.070	.207 *

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

Leadership Style and Satisfaction with Supervision. Questions 3 and 5 examine the influence of leadership consideration structure scores (LOQ) on satisfaction with supervision (JSS). Specifically, question 3 asks if there is a relationship between a child care director’s leadership consideration style, as determined by the LOQ, and the child care workers’ level of supervisor job satisfaction, as determined by the supervisor subscale score on the JSS. To test the relationship between the director’s consideration leadership style and the child care worker’s satisfaction with supervision, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables. There was no significant correlation. As above, this reveals that there is no apparent relationship between the directors’ consideration and satisfaction with supervision as measured by the LQQ and JSS respectively.

The fifth question asks if there is a relationship between a child care director’s structure orientation, as determined by the LOQ, and the child care workers’ level of supervisor job satisfaction, as determined by the supervisor subscale score on the JSS. To test the relationship between the director’s structure orientation and the child care workers’ satisfaction with supervision, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables. There was a significant positive correlation between leadership structure and satisfaction with supervision (r = .207, n = 94, p<.05). This appears to indicate that a director’s leadership structure and child care workers’ satisfaction with supervision are positively correlated—that as the director’s leadership structure score increases, the child care workers’ level of job satisfaction increases.

One Way ANOVA and Post-Hoc Analyses. An analysis of variance was conducted on job satisfaction between the one center that had a director with high structured leadership and the other center directors who were low on structure. There were significant difference in the mean difference on the scores global job satisfaction (p<.001) and satisfaction with supervision (p<.003). Table 10-A and 10-B list the ANOVA results for global job satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision.

Table 10-A

ANOVA Results for JSS Global Job Satisfaction

Source	SS	df	MS	F	P value	F
Between	13418.12	7	1916.87	4.31	0.0001	2.13
Within	35167.85	79	445.16
Total	48585.96	86

Table 10-B

ANOVA Results for JSS Satisfaction with Supervision

Source	SS	df	MS	F	P value	F
Between	546.66	7	78.09	3.50	0.0003	2.13
Within	1740.37	78	22.31
Total	2287.02	85

Since the one-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the child care centers on satisfaction with supervision, a post-hoc t-test between centers was conducted between Center 7 (LC-HS), the only center with a director high on structure, and the remaining center directors, who were low on leadership structure (LS). The first set of post hoc t-tests were conducted on the JSS global job satisfaction scores, using Center 7 and comparing it systematically to the remaining centers. No significant differences emerged. The second set of post hoc t-tests examined the satisfaction with supervision scores, using Center 7 and comparing it systematically to the remaining centers. One significant difference emerged. Since direction was not predicted in the research questions and in keeping with the consistency of previous assessment criteria, a two-tailed t-test was performed. There was a significant difference between Center 7 (LC-HS) and Center 5 (HC-LS), (t=2.31, df=8, p<. 003).

Given that two independent evaluations of the data were conducted utilizing unequal samples, a Bonferroni adjustment was performed post-hoc for further evaluation of the finding that was statistically significant. Using an adjusted alpha level .01, the findings for the procedure related to the criterion variable of satisfaction with supervision, which previously resulted in findings of statistical significance, was examined. With a p<. 003 and a t value of 3.36, the significant difference between Center 7 (LC-HS) and Center 5 (HC-LS) was supported.

Regression Analysis. The use of a regression approach offers the most comprehensive examination of the research variables and is most appropriate for a speculative study such as the one at hand. Using the enter method, a significant model did not emerge (F = 2.242, p < .112). The adjusted R square = .022 with a standard error of estimate – 24.21 (The model accounts for 2% of the variance in leadership style). The results of the regression analysis are listed Table 11.

Table 11

Regression Analysis for Consideration and Structure

Source	Unstandardized	Coefficents	Stand. Coeff.	t	Sig.
	B	St. Error	Beta
Constant	232.06	47.66		4.86	.00
Consideration	-1.21	.627	-.25	-1.93	.056
Structure	-.825	.508	-.21	-1.62	.11

With the regression analysis, using structure and consideration together were not significant in predicting overall job satisfaction. When analyzing structure and consideration by themselves, neither was significant at the .05 level, although consideration was close with p<.056. Even though some relationships were significant, they did not account for much in the way of the total amount of variability with regard to leadership in attempt to identify a “model” regarding leadership style.

Leadership structure did significantly predict satisfaction with supervision at the .05 level (p<.027). Additionally, there was a significant relationship between the JSS satisfaction subscale and the global score on the JSS, indicating that the satisfaction with supervision is one of the larger issues making up the global score for the JSS. Table 12 summarizes the multivariate analysis.

Table 12

Multivariate Regression Analysis for Consideration and Structure

Source	Unstandardized	Coeff.	Stand. Coeff.	t	Sig.
	B	St. Error	Beta
Constant	6.21	9.81		.63	.53
Consideration	7.93	.13	.08	.62	.54
Structure	.21	.10	.25	2.00	.048

Pearson Product Analysis. The relationship between the consideration and structure scores from the LOQ and the global score and satisfaction with supervision scores on the JSS was examined using a Pearson Product Moment correlation test. A significant relationship was found for the structure leadership style as measured by the LOQ and global satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision as measured by the JSS. Table 12 summarizes the correlation between the LOQ factors and the JSS factors. Please refer back to Table 9 for the correlations between LOQ Factors and JSS Factors. This concludes the analysis for the research questions posed in this study.

DISCUSSION

Due to the lack of research on the topic of leadership style and the influence on employee job satisfaction in nonprofit agencies, a series of research questions were posed. Specifically, this research effort was designed to explore the influence of leadership consideration and structure orientations on employee job satisfaction in nonprofit, child care agencies. Although the results of this study did not provide support for the influence of leadership consideration on employee job satisfaction, it did provide mild significant results on the influence of leadership structure on employee job satisfaction, both on a global level and satisfaction with supervision sub level.

High quality child care contributes to a child’s development, socially, cognitively, and emotionally (Todd & Deery-Schmitt, 1996); therefore, it is not surprising that the problem of employee job satisfaction is critical in terms of providing quality (Deery-Schmitt & Todd, 1995). Given that turnover is higher in nonprofit organizations that offer low wages, job dissatisfaction and turnover in human service agencies, particularly child care providers, is problematic in that it potentially compromises child development (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). The literature shows that it is very young children who are most vulnerable to the effects of poor quality child care (Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children, 1994; Gnezda, 1996). With the growing need for child care services and investments by state and other funding agencies (National Prekindergarten Program, 2004), the issue of job satisfaction is key to maintaining and promoting quality child care programs.

The present research focused on two leadership factors: consideration and structure. These factors are important to leadership research and emerged out of the Ohio State Studies (Robbins, 1998). Leadership consideration and leadership structure were measured using the Fleishman’s (1996) LOQ assessment that emerged out of the Ohio State Studies (Fleishman, 1996). Spector (1997) noted that job satisfaction does influence employee behavior, which, in turn, influences organizational functioning. Job satisfaction was measured using Spector’s (1994) JSS.

Research Questions and Outcomes

Leadership Consideration and Structure. The relationship between leader consideration and structure was mixed. A Pearson Product Moment correction analysis revealed that there was a significant negative correlation between leadership consideration and leadership structure, indicating an inverse relationship existed. Given the small sample size, a bivariate correlational analysis on the consideration and structure LOQ scores was conducted. The resulting correlation between these two variables was not significant. The correlation between consideration and structure has been a long-standing debate in the field (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Much of the debate centers on the concerns about the independence of these dimensions. Fleishman (1996) claims orthogonally of these dimensions, which suggests that leadership consideration is independent of leadership structure. Although the literature notes that these scales should be independent, research does not always support the orthogonally of these dimensions of leadership (Bass, 1990; Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972). Yet, the LOQ is one of the few measures that demonstrate low intercorrelations (Fleishman, 1996; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Additional research is needed on the independence of these dimensions of leadership.

A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between leadership structure and global job satisfaction as well as satisfaction with supervision. This difference was mild and did not account for much of the variance. A post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences between leadership style and job satisfaction. Follow t-tests revealed a significant difference on satisfaction with supervision between the director of Center 7 (LC-HS) and the director of Center 5 (HC-LS). As noted, the Bonferroni correction resulted in a highly significant finding related to the criterion variable of satisfaction with supervision, between Center 7 and Center 5. It was of interest that the director of Center 7 had different credentials compared to other directors. She had a degree in nursing whereas the others had degrees in early childhood education and administration. Center 7 could have been an outlier in the data, thus skewing the sample. Future studies may want to consider education in relationship to structure and consideration leadership style.

This largest grouping of directors was in the HC-LS category, a participative style of leadership. The participative system is the ideal for the human service agencies, such as child care centers, and Likert (1961) states that all organizations should adopt this system. The participative style was also discussed by Hersey and Blanchard’s (1993) theory, in which leadership was characterized by structure and supportive consideration behaviors. With this sample of directors, 62.5% had a participative style of leadership. Participating (HC-LS) styles indicate that the leader and follower share in decision making, with the main role of the leader being facilitating and communicating. Yet, significantly more child care workers were satisfied with the leader who was LC-HS, which would equate with Hersey and Blanchard’s (1964) telling style of leadership. With the telling (LC-HS) style, the leader defines roles and directs people on what, how, when, and where to do various tasks. It emphasizes ordered behavior. According to Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid, the majority of the directors in this study would be classified as country club managers. Country Club Managers show a minimum concern for production (1) but maximum concern for people. Even at the expense of achieving results, fostering good feelings gets primary attention. Yet, satisfaction with supervision was associated with authority-obedience managing style. With the Authority-Obedience Manger, the maximum concern is for production and is combined with a minimum concern for people. Counter the research trends in profit and military organizations, child care workers in nonprofit centers were more satisfied with a director who had a leadership style low on structure.

Leadership Consideration and Job Satisfaction. There was no significant correlation between leadership consideration and global job satisfaction. This means that there is no apparent relationship between this population of child care workers’ global job satisfaction and the consideration leadership style of their director as measured by the JSS and LOQ. There was no significant correlation between leader consideration and satisfaction with supervision. As above, this reveals that there is no apparent relationship between the director’s consideration style of leadership and supervisor job satisfaction as measured by the LQQ and JSS respectively. The lack of significant differences may be due in part to the small number of directors participating in the study.

Leadership Structure and Job Satisfaction. There was a mild but significant positive correlation between leadership structure and global job satisfaction. This appears to indicate that a director’s leadership structure and child care workers’ global job satisfaction are positively correlated—that as the director’s leadership structure score increases, the child care workers’ level of global job satisfaction increases. In addition, there was a significant positive correlation between leadership structure and supervisor job satisfaction.

With the regression analysis, using structure and consideration together was not significant in predicting overall job satisfaction. When analyzing structure and consideration by themselves, neither was significant, although consideration was close to reaching significance. Even though some relationships are significant, they do not account for much in the way of the total amount of variability with regard to leadership in attempt to identify a “model” regarding leadership style. On the other hand, leadership structure did significantly predict satisfaction with supervision. Additionally, there was a significant relationship between the JSS satisfaction subscale and the global score on the JSS, indicating that the satisfaction with supervision is one of the larger issues making up the global score for the JSS.

“When supervisors were perceived to initiate structure, set goals, assist with problem solving, provide social and material support, and give feedback on job performance, their subordinates experienced lower ambiguity and uncertainty, and hence greater satisfaction with their job” (O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994, p. 152). This pilot study was exception to research trends in the literature since it provides support that is more positive for leaders initiating structure as opposed to showing consideration for employees.

Summary of Discussion

The preceding discussion highlights the clarity, and the lack thereof, regarding the relationships between and among the variables. The points of clarity relate directly to the research questions. The first of these points is that leadership structure and satisfaction with supervision were mildly but significantly correlated in this research sample. This outcome was surprising given the discussion of previous research trends in profit organizations.

Child care workers’ perception of their director’s leadership style influenced their level of job satisfaction. The link between a structured style and job satisfaction, which has important implications for trainers of future child care directors as employee indicate a desire to have more structured leadership to be satisfied with their jobs, and specifically satisfied with the supervision they receive.

This study implemented a widely used research technique, namely, the use of surveys. Although surveys are important for predicting behavior, they do have their limitations. To maintain ethical standards, surveys were treated anonymously and confidentially in this study. People volunteered to participate, which makes this sample different from the larger population. Since it was not required that the child care workers participate, the return rate was only 56%. This return rate was only 9% lower than the Hellman (1997) study that surveyed teacher job satisfaction in relation to their principal’s leadership style and only 4% lower than the McKee (1991) study of college president leadership style and faculty job satisfaction.

As noted in the preceding summary, the results of this research provided both clarity and uncertainty with regard to the relationships between and among the variables. Much of the uncertainty was related in part to difficulties associated with the population sample. In addition, there was a great deal of variability in the sample. Given the small sample size, future studies may focus on expanding the number of participating directors. Also, future studies could focus on the number of years of directing experience. This sample had a great deal of variation with 3 to 32 range in years.

Further, all the participants in this study were female. Future research should determine if there are gender differences with respect to job satisfaction and leadership style in nonprofit agencies, such as child care. For example, Bogler (2002) reported that female teachers expressed greater job satisfaction as compared to their male counterparts. There are few studies on employee job satisfaction, which examine the relationship between job satisfaction and teacher demographic characteristics. Personal demographic characteristics can be examined in more detail, particularly the relationship between education level, length of employment, and need for structure leadership style.

In order to determine the relationship of leadership structure needs for people newly hired, the length of employment for each employee should be recorded for future research efforts. Additionally, this information would lend itself well to a study of the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover with respect to leadership style. Given that the turnover rate is high in child care centers, with ranges from 30-50% per year (Ramsburg & Montanelli, 1999), many new employees are hired each year. A question that remains to be answered is if it is the newer employees who need a structured leadership style in order to be satisfied their jobs and level of supervision.

The present research focused only on the analysis of the current leadership conditions and satisfaction levels within eight child care centers. Further, it focused on one exogenous factor, leadership style, on child care worker job satisfaction. Other factors can be considered such organizational variables, center size, accreditation, school location, and religious affiliations

An elemental risk for a correlational approach is that some variable or variables other than those under consideration may be responsible for the obtained relationship (Wood, 1974). There are extraneous factors to consider when discussing the impact of leadership style on job satisfaction and turnover. For instance, the experience level of the employee may be a moderator on preference for leadership style. Russ and McNeilly (1995) stated that experience has a direct relationship to turnover and organizational commitment. Further, experience may moderate relationships such as perceptions, attitudes, and behavior. New employees will “be more sensitive and display stronger reactions to work-related variables such as leadership behavior and role stress than their longer-tenured counterparts” (Johnston, et al., 1989, p. 272). Except for supervisor consideration, the impact will decline as employees learn about their job duties, solidify attitudes toward the organization, and become more independent (Russ & McNeilly, 1995). Satisfaction with immediate supervisors will have more impact on the organizational commitment of less experienced employees than more seasoned workers.

What is needed is longitudinal research which will follow several centers, their leaders, and their child care workers over a period of several years, such the 2 year longitudinal study with 57 family child care providers conducted by Todd and Deery-Schmitt (1996). These longitudinal studies can focus on job satisfaction as it relates to job turnover, position turnover, and occupational turnover.

A comparison of profit and nonprofit child care centers with respect to the variables considered in this research is needed. Do leadership styles differ in for-profit child care centers compared to the non profit counterparts? The present study was exploratory and utilized a nonexperimental design, which was helped illuminate the relationship between the variables in question. In order to ascertain causal relationships, an experimental design must be adopted. In keeping with the current trends in leadership research, future studies in this arena should focus on the impact of other leadership styles, such as transformational and on employee job satisfaction.

Implications for Social Change

The results imply social change effort at a broader level of nonprofit organizations. Leadership style is critical in terms of an employee’s level of job satisfaction. By vicariously watching the leader, employees attach meaning to the leader’s behavior and evaluate that in terms of his or her expectations of supervision. Thus, employees will use the evaluation to determine satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with the organization. The study of job satisfaction is important given its effect on employee retention (Bogler, 2002).

Given the quality issues with respect to the shortage of highly qualified directors of child care agencies (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003), training issues must be addressed. First, directors of child care centers need to be aware of their leadership style and the relationship of style to employee job satisfaction. It would appear that developing a leadership style high on consideration and high on structure is important for increasing employee satisfaction (Bass, 1990). Research supports that when leaders change their definitions of leadership, job satisfaction increases and turnover is decreased to near zero (Bissell & Beach, 1996). Specifically, if leaders are low in structure, they need training that focuses on increasing skill in planning, communicated information, scheduling, and providing informative and constructive feedback to employees (Fleishman, 1996).

Training programs can also focus on strategies for improving employee retention, as suggestion by Armour (2000). Specifically, directors need to have training on the attitudinal facets which lead to dissatisfaction (Spector, 1997). Leaders should be trained to recognize aspects of the organizational climate which create uncertainty for employees, a critical issue when bring a new employee on board. A telling style is going to be more effective for leaders to adopt when working with new employees. When employees perceive their director as initiating structure through setting goals, problem solving, and providing feedback on performance, employees were more satisfied, experienced less strain, and the position was less likely to turnover (O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994). Director training can focus on the need for frequent assessment feedback for new employees.

Generally, the results of this research are relevant psychology as they pertain to relationship issues, communication strategies, and attitudes developed by employees. Specifically, the results are relevant to directors who wish to increase the job satisfaction of their employees as well as prevent turnover. The results of the research can be disseminated in director training programs, thereby promoting social change by focusing on the impact of leadership style on employee job satisfaction. In this exploratory study, a need for structured leadership was related to higher global job satisfaction as well as satisfaction with supervision. Further, the results can contribute to social change by examining the impact of leadership style in other nonprofit agencies having an organizational structure similar to child care agencies. With the flux of change in nonprofit organizations, such as child care centers, the need for structure seems to be critical to employee job satisfaction, particularly on satisfaction with supervision and has important implications for child care director training programs.

References

Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1986). Statistical methods for the social sciences. San

Francisco, CA: Dellen Publishing Company.

Allen, W.R., Drevs, R.A., & Ruhe, J.A. (1999). Reasons why college educated women

change employment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(1), 77-93.

Armour, S. (2000, April 12). Bosses held liable for keeping workers. USA Today,

Money Section, p. 1.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, &

management applications. New York: Free Press.

Bissell, B.L., & Beach, L.R. (1996). Supervision and job satisfaction. In decision

making in the workplace: A unified perspective. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Bogler, R. (2002). Two profiles of school teachers: A discriminant analysis of job

satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 665-673.

Borge, A.I., Hartman, E., & Strom. (1996). The Norwegian perspective on issue of

quality in day care. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(2), 129-137.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self esteem at work. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company.

Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children (1994). Starting points:

Meeting the needs of our youngest children. New York: Carnegie Corporation

of New York.

Chen, P.Y., & Spector, P.E. (1991). Negatively affectivity as the underlying cause of

correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398-407.

DeCremer, D. (2003). Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair:

The importance of social self-esteem concerns. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 33(4), 535-550.

Fiedler, F.E., & Chemers, M.M. (1982). Improving leadership effectiveness. The leader

match concept. New York: John Wiley.

Field, R.H. (2002). Leadership defined: Web images reveal the differences between

leadership and management. Submitted to the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada 2002 annual meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Retrieved

July 26, 2004 from http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/papers/LeadershipDefined.htm

Fleishman, E.A. (1996). Examiner’s manual for the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire

(LOQ). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.

Gnezda, M.T. (1996). Welfare reform: Personal responsibilities and opportunities for

early childhood advocates. Young Children, 52(1), 55-58.

Hellman, C.M. (1997).Job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Social Psychology,

137(6), 677-689.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1993) Management of organizational behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., & Furtell, C.M. (1989). Extending a model of

salesperson role perceptions and work related attitudes: Impact of job tenure. Journal of Business Resources, 18, 269-290.

Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of

consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51.

Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L.M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A

preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9(4), 341-357.

Kleinman, C.S. (2004). Leadership and retention: Research needed. Journal of Nursing

Administration, 34(3), 111-114.

Knoop, R. (1987, May-June). Causes of job dissatisfaction among teachers.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

McKee, J.G. (1991). Leadership styles of community college presidents and faculty job

satisfaction. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 15(1), 33-46

O’Driscoll, M.P., & Beehr, T.A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and

uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 141-155.

Ramsburg, D., & Montanelli, D. (1999). Child care salaries and staff turnover: The key

to child care quality. Springfield: Illinois Association for the Education of Young Children.

Ribelin, P.J. (2003). Retention reflects leadership style. Nursing Management, 34(8),

18-20.

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Russ, F.A., & McNeilly, K.M. (1995). Links among, satisfaction, commitment, and

turnover intentions: The moderating effect of experience, gender, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 34, 57-65.

Ruvolo, C.M., Petersen, S.A., & LeBoefu, J.N. (2004). Leaders are made, not born:

The critical role of a developmental framework to facilitate an organizational

culture of development. Consulting Psychology Journal, 56(1), 10-19.

Singh, A.P. (1998). Supervision and organizational effectiveness: Role conflict as a

moderator. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 24(1-2), 19-25.

Singh, A.P., & Pestonjee, D.M. (1974). Supervisory behavior and job satisfaction.

Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 9, 407-416.

Spector, P.E. (1994). Job Satisfaction Survey. Retrieved April 7, 2002 from

http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~spector/scales/jsspag.html

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and

consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Todd, C.M., & Deery-Schmitt, D.M. (1996). Factors affecting turnover among family

child care providers: A longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

11, 351-376.

Vickers, P. (2002). (personal communication, April 18, 2002).

Weissenberg, P., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1972). The independence of initiating structure

and consideration: A review of the evidence. Personnel Psychology, 25, 119-130.

Wilkinson, A.D., & Wagner, R.M. (1993). Supervisory leadership styles and state

vocational rehabilitation counselor job satisfaction and productivity. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37(1), 15 -24.

Whitebook, M., & Bellm, D. (1999). Taking on turnover: An action guide for child care

Center teachers and directors. Washington, DC: Center for Child Care

Workforce.

Whitebook, M., & Sakai, L. (2003). Turnover begets turnover: An examination of job

And occupational instability among child care center staff. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 18, 273-293.

Wood, G. (1974). Fundamentals of psychological research. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zaleznik, A. (1992; March/April). Managers and leaders: Are they different?

Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 126-135.