INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Transformational Teaching Matters: Lecturer Leadership Styles and  
Student Satisfaction in Malaysian Higher Education  
Suriani Sukri1*, Waeibrorheem Waemustafa2 & Sharifah Raudzah S Mahadi3  
1Faculty of Business and Communication, University Malaysia Perlis, Campus UniCITI Alam, Sungai  
Chuchuh 02100 Padang Besar, Perlis, Malaysia  
2School of Economic, Finance and Banking, University Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Malaysia  
3Faculty of Arts & Design, University Technology MARA Perak Branch, Seri Iskandar Campus, 32610  
Perak, Malaysia  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100077  
Received: 13 November 2025; Accepted: 23 November 2025; Published: 29 November 2025  
ABSTRACT  
Student satisfaction is a key indicator of teaching quality and institutional performance in higher education. As  
lecturers function as leaders within the classroom, their leadership behaviours significantly influence students’  
learning experiences and perceptions of academic quality. This study examines the influence of transformational,  
transactional, and task-oriented leadership styles on student satisfaction among undergraduates at Universiti  
Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP). Guided by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) and transformational  
leadership principles, this research employed a quantitative cross-sectional design. A structured questionnaire  
adapted from established scales was distributed to 370 students. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.774 to  
0.853, indicating acceptable to excellent reliability. Results show that transformational leadership is the strongest  
predictor of student satisfaction, followed by transactional leadership with a moderate effect, while task-oriented  
leadership exhibits weak effects. The findings highlight the need for universities to strengthen transformational  
teaching practices to enhance student satisfaction. Practical implications and recommendations for leadership  
development among lecturers are provided.  
Keywords: Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Task-Oriented Leadership, Student  
Satisfaction, Higher Education, Malaysia, Leadership Behaviour  
INTRODUCTION  
Background  
Lecturers serve not only as instructors but also as leaders who shape students’ academic experiences, motivation,  
and satisfaction (Mazer & Hess, 2017). Student satisfaction is linked to learning effectiveness and institutional  
success, making lecturer leadership behaviour a critical area of inquiry (Pekrun et al., 2017). Transformational  
leadership, in particular, has been consistently associated with improved student engagement and satisfaction  
(Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009; Eom, 2009).  
Despite this, lecturers in many universities including Malaysian public institutions often prioritise administrative  
duties over leadership behaviours that enhance student experience (Manning, 2017). This imbalance may  
negatively affect teaching quality (Kumpulainen et al., 2018). Therefore, examining which leadership styles  
most effectively influence student satisfaction is essential.  
Problem Statement  
The problem of lecturer leadership arises from increasing concerns that many academics lack the leadership  
capabilities required to foster an engaging and supportive learning environment. Although lecturers play a central  
Page 935  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
role in shaping students’ learning experiences, deficiencies in communication, student support, innovation, and  
collegial collaboration continue to impede instructional effectiveness and student development. This issue is  
further complicated by evidence showing that high-quality leadership behaviours such as transformational or  
justice-focused leadership are resource-intensive and psychologically taxing. Prior studies (e.g., Johnson et al.,  
2014; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) highlight that leaders often face emotional exhaustion, time constraints, and  
cognitive strain when attempting to enact leadership behaviours that demand persuasion, motivation, and  
emotional regulation.  
Moreover, certain leadership styles may be ill-suited for academic and quality assurance contexts.  
Transformational leaders may respond slowly to crises, exacerbating staff frustrations (Soumya et al., 2025),  
while high power-distance cultures can inhibit collaboration, stakeholder involvement, and shared decision-  
making—factors essential for effective quality assurance processes (Huang et al., 2005; Kim & Oh, 2016; Lee  
& Lee, 2024; Karakuş & Akçakanat, 2024). Divergent expectations among key stakeholders (e.g., deans,  
lecturers, government agencies, parents, students) further complicate the attainment of common quality  
standards (Beerkens & Udam, 2017).  
Task-oriented leadership styles also present drawbacks. Strict rule adherence may suppress creativity, reduce  
morale, and increase turnover (Bass, 1990). In dynamic and highly competitive sectors, such restrictive  
environments limit the risk-taking necessary for responsiveness and innovation (MindTools, 2009). Collectively,  
these issues underscore a critical gap: higher education institutions lack a leadership framework that balances  
effectiveness with the emotional, cognitive, and contextual demands placed on lecturers. This unresolved tension  
necessitates further research into leadership models that enhance lecturer performance, sustain well-being, and  
support quality assurance expectations.  
Research Objectives  
This research aims to:  
1. To examine the relationship between transformational leadership and student satisfaction.  
2. To analyse the relationship between transactional leadership and student satisfaction.  
3. To determine the relationship between task-oriented leadership and student satisfaction.  
Research Questions  
1. Does transformational leadership influence student satisfaction?  
2. Does transactional leadership influence student satisfaction?  
3. Does task-oriented leadership influence student satisfaction?  
Significance of the Study  
This study enhances the understanding of leadership in educational contexts and supports the development of  
leadership-driven teaching approaches (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Practically, it provides evidence-based  
recommendations for improving lecturer development programmes and fostering student-centred learning  
environments.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
Student Satisfaction  
Student satisfaction reflects perceived fulfilment of academic expectations (Astin, 1993). It is positively  
associated with academic performance, motivation, and overall well-being (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Lecturer  
behaviour, particularly leadership style, directly affects student satisfaction (Lovett, 2018; Yu & Deng, 2022).  
Page 936  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Transformational Leadership  
Transformational leadership inspires followers to exceed expectations and embrace change (Bass, 1997; Bass &  
Riggio, 2006). Its core dimensions include idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,  
and individualised consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1993).  
Classroom studies consistently show that transformational leadership enhances student participation,  
satisfaction, and perceived learning (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009; Noland, 2005). Intellectual stimulation and  
inspiring motivation are strongly linked to improved student performance and communication satisfaction  
(Pounder, 2008; Eom, 2009).  
Transactional Leadership  
Transactional leadership is based on exchanges between leader and follower, such as rewards for performance  
(Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2013). Contingent reward and management-by-exception form the core of this style  
(Bass, 1990; Trottier et al., 2008).  
Although less inspirational than transformational leadership, empirical studies show that transactional leadership  
contributes to clarity, structure, and predictable learning environments (Aydin et al., 2013). Contingent reward  
can reduce teacher burnout and improve motivation (Eyal & Roth, 2010).  
Task-Oriented Leadership  
Task-oriented leaders emphasise goals, structure, and task completion (Fiedler, 1964; Forsyth & Donelson,  
2010). While beneficial in structured work environments (Anzalone, 2017), this style may suppress creativity  
and harm interpersonal relationships (Wroblewski, 2019). Studies in higher education show weak or negative  
links between task orientation and policy implementation or innovation (Brown, 2003).  
Theoretical Framework  
Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) asserts that learning arises from interactions between  
environmental, behavioural, and internal factors. Lecturer leadership serves as an environmental influence  
shaping student expectations, motivation, and performance (Caprara et al., 2006).  
Hypotheses  
H1: Transformational leadership has a significant positive influence on student satisfaction.  
H2: Transactional leadership has a significant positive influence on student satisfaction.  
H3: Task-oriented leadership has a significant influence on student satisfaction.  
METHODOLOGY  
Research Design  
A quantitative, cross-sectional survey design was used, appropriate for examining relationships between  
measurable variables (Disman et al., 2017).  
Sampling  
The UniMAP student population (~13,000) required a minimum of 370 samples based on Krejcie and Morgan’s  
(1970) table. Purposive sampling targeted undergraduate students.  
Instrumentation  
The questionnaire comprised:  
Page 937  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Demographics  
Transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1990)  
Transactional leadership  
Task-oriented leadership (Sage Publications, 2014)  
Student satisfaction (Douglas et al., 2006)  
5-point Likert scales were used (Taherdoost, 2016).  
Reliability  
Reliability results (Cronbach’s α):  
Transformational: .798  
Transactional: .814  
Task-oriented: .774  
Student satisfaction: .853  
All values exceed the recommended threshold (Hair et al., 2010). As illustrate in the above below, the  
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients displayed Cronbach's Alpha. The value of α for preparation for Transformational  
Leadership is 0.798 while Transactional Leadership α is 0.814. Cronbach's alpha for Task-Oriented Leadership  
is 0.774 and Student’s Satisfaction is 0.853. These value of α for Transformational Leadership, Transactional  
Leadership, Task-Oriented Leadership and Student’s Satisfaction shows a good level of association as each of α  
value is higher than 0.6.  
Data Analysis  
SPSS Version 27 was used to conduct descriptive statistics, reliability testing (Sekaran, 2003), correlation  
analysis, and multiple regression (Leech et al., 2015).  
RESULTS  
Correlation Analysis  
Transformational leadership displayed the strongest positive correlation with student satisfaction, consistent with  
earlier research (Gill et al., 2010). Transactional leadership showed moderate correlations. Task-oriented  
leadership showed weak or non-significant correlations.  
Regression Analysis  
Regression results confirm:  
Transformational leadership → strong positive effect (p < .001)  
Transactional leadership → moderate effect (p < .05)  
Task-oriented leadership → weak / inconsistent effect  
The model accounted for a meaningful proportion of variance in student satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 2003).  
Page 938  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
DISCUSSION  
Transformational Leadership  
The strong influence of transformational leadership supports findings by Pounder (2008), Bolkan and Goodboy  
(2009), and Eom (2009). Students respond positively to inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and personalised  
attention.  
Transactional Leadership  
Transactional leadership contributed moderately, aligning with studies showing that contingent reward enhances  
clarity and reduces burnout (Eyal & Roth, 2010; Kahai et al., 1997).  
Task-Oriented Leadership  
Weak effects of task-oriented leadership support findings that excessive structure limits creativity and emotional  
connection (Brown, 2003; Wroblewski, 2019).  
Implications  
Theoretical  
The study reinforces Social Cognitive Theory, showing that lecturer behaviour shapes student satisfaction  
(Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996). Reinforces transformational leadership as the most effective leadership style in  
higher education.  
Practical  
Universities should build leadership-based teaching development programmes that emphasise transformational  
behaviours (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).  
RECOMMENDATIONS  
The findings of this study highlight several promising avenues for future research. First, replicating the proposed  
relationships across diverse cultural and geographical settings may yield deeper and more generalisable insights.  
Future work should also consider examining leadership styles from the perspective of contemporary students,  
whose expectations and learning behaviours continue to evolve. Additionally, incorporating broader outcome  
variables - such as student effort, commitment, and academic achievement would enrich understanding of how  
lecturer leadership influences student development.  
To further unpack the complexity of these relationships, future studies could explore additional mediating  
factors, including personality traits, self-efficacy, and teamwork dynamics. Expanding the sample to include a  
wider range of universities with accreditation standards comparable to Universiti Malaya would also enhance  
the robustness and external validity of the findings. Finally, distributing the survey across a more diverse and  
representative student population is recommended to improve sample size and strengthen the generalisability of  
the results.  
CONCLUSION  
Transformational leadership is the most effective leadership style for improving student satisfaction at UniMAP.  
Transactional leadership offers moderate support, while task-oriented leadership contributes minimally.  
Universities should prioritise leadership development to enhance teaching quality and student experience.  
Page 939  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
REFERENCES  
1. Anzalone, C. (2017). Task-oriented leadership in organisational settings. Leadership & Organization  
Development Journal, 38(4), 560–572.  
2. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.  
3. Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, Ş. (2013). The effect of school principals’ leadership styles on teachers’  
organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Educational Research Review, 8(1), 1–5.  
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.  
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.  
6. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.  
Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.  
7. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend  
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.  
8. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public  
Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.  
9. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.  
10. Beerkens, M., & Udam, M. (2017). Stakeholders in higher education quality assurance: Richness in  
diversity?. Higher Education Policy, 30(3), 341-359.  
11. Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student  
learning, student participation, and student satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(4), 296–  
306.  
12. Brown, M. (2003). Task orientation and organizational reform initiatives. Academy of Management  
Journal, 46(2), 170–185.  
13. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.  
14. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as  
determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology,  
44(6), 473–490.  
15. Disman, D., Ali, M., & Barliana, M. S. (2017). The use of quantitative research in social sciences.  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 6(7), 6–9.  
16. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality  
Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251–267.  
17. Eom, S. B. (2009). Effects of LMS, self-efficacy, and self-directed learning on student satisfaction in  
online learning. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology & Learning, 1(3), 35–49.  
18. Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2010). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self-determination theory  
analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 256–275.  
19. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social  
Psychology, 1, 149–190.  
20. Forsyth, D., & Donelson, R. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.  
21. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and  
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.  
22. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of  
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.  
23. Gill, A., Mand, H., Sharma, S., & Mathur, N. (2010). The relationship between transformational  
leadership and student outcomes. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(4), 1–10.  
24. Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in  
Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.  
25. Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Leader–member  
exchange (LMX) theory. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.  
26. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).  
Pearson.  
27. Huang, X., de Vliert, E. V., & der Vegt, G. V. (2005). Breaking the Silence Culture: Stimulation of  
Participation andEmployee Opinion Withholding Cross-nationally. Management and Organization  
Review, 1(3), 459–482. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00023.x  
Page 940  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
28. Johnson, R. E., et al. (2014). Exhaustion from leadership practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5),  
849–865.  
29. Karakuş, G., & Akçakanat, T. (2024). Impact of individual cultural values on employee silence: A  
comparative study of the USA and Türkiye. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler  
Dergisi, 19(2), 525-558.  
30. Kim, M., & Oh, S. (2016). Assimilating to hierarchical culture: A grounded theory study on  
communication among clinical nurses. PLoS One, 11(6), e0156305.  
31. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational  
and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.  
32. Kumpulainen, K., Kaaja, E., & Rajala, A. (2018). Education structures and leadership. Educational  
Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 621–637.  
33. Lee, S. E., & Lee, J. W. (2024). Effects of hierarchical unit culture and power distance orientation on  
nurses’ silence behavior: the roles of perceived futility and hospital management support for patient  
safety. Journal of Nursing Management, 2024(1), 6564570.  
34. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics. Routledge.  
35. Lovett, S. (2018). Student satisfaction and lecturer behaviour. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(7), 831–  
846.  
36. Manning, K. (2017). Organizational theory in higher education. Routledge.  
37. Mazer, J. P., & Hess, J. A. (2017). Instructional communication in higher education. Communication  
Education, 66(3), 396–407.  
38. Noland, A. (2005). Transformational teaching and student empowerment. Journal of Instructional  
Psychology, 32(1), 20–30.  
39. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.  
40. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),  
543–578.  
41. Pekrun, R., et al. (2017). Student emotions, motivation, and achievement. Educational Psychologist,  
52(1), 1–20.  
42. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in  
behavioural research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.  
43. Pounder, J. (2008). Transformational leadership effects on teacher perceptions. Educational Management  
Administration & Leadership, 36(4), 541–558.  
44. Sage Publications. (2014). Leadership styles in organisational research. Sage Publications.  
45. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. Wiley.  
46. Soumya, R., Padmavathi, S. M., & Venkatesh, S. (2025). Leadership models and their effectiveness in  
crisis. International Journal of Social Impact, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.25215/2455/1002045  
47. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of research instruments. International Journal of Academic  
Research, 5(3), 28–36.  
48. Trottier, T., Van Wart, M., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of leadership in  
government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 319–333.  
49. Wroblewski, M. (2019). Task-oriented leadership and organisational innovation. Journal of Leadership  
and Innovation, 7(1), 50–62.  
50. Yang, J.-T. (2007). Transactional leadership and group performance. Journal of Management  
Development, 26(4), 306–321.  
51. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Review of Educational  
Research, 74(3), 255–316.  
52. Yu, X., & Deng, P. (2022). Student satisfaction and learning effectiveness in higher education. Higher  
Education Studies, 12(1), 14–22.  
Page 941  
www.rsisinternational.org