Transformational Teaching Matters: Lecturer Leadership Styles and Student Satisfaction in Malaysian Higher Education

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.

Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership

1. Anzalone, C. (2017). Task-oriented leadership in organisational settings. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(4), 560–572. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Beerkens, M., & Udam, M. (2017). Stakeholders in higher education quality assurance: Richness in diversity?. Higher Education Policy, 30(3), 341-359. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Brown, M. (2003). Task orientation and organizational reform initiatives. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 170–185. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251–267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2010). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 256–275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149–190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Forsyth, D., & Donelson, R. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Johnson, R. E., et al. (2014). Exhaustion from leadership practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 849–865. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Kim, M., & Oh, S. (2016). Assimilating to hierarchical culture: A grounded theory study on communication among clinical nurses. PLoS One, 11(6), e0156305. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kumpulainen, K., Kaaja, E., & Rajala, A. (2018). Education structures and leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 621–637. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Lovett, S. (2018). Student satisfaction and lecturer behaviour. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(7), 831–846. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Manning, K. (2017). Organizational theory in higher education. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mazer, J. P., & Hess, J. A. (2017). Instructional communication in higher education. Communication Education, 66(3), 396–407. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Noland, A. (2005). Transformational teaching and student empowerment. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 20–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Pekrun, R., et al. (2017). Student emotions, motivation, and achievement. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Pounder, J. (2008). Transformational leadership effects on teacher perceptions. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(4), 541–558. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sage Publications. (2014). Leadership styles in organisational research. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of research instruments. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(3), 28–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Wroblewski, M. (2019). Task-oriented leadership and organisational innovation. Journal of Leadership and Innovation, 7(1), 50–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Yang, J.-T. (2007). Transactional leadership and group performance. Journal of Management Development, 26(4), 306–321. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Yu, X., & Deng, P. (2022). Student satisfaction and learning effectiveness in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 12(1), 14–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study