INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1867
www.rsisinternational.org
Transformational Leadership on Faculty Motivation and Student
Learning Outcomes Among Educators in Selected Universities in
Davao City
PJ Mosqueda
University of Perpetual Help System DALTA – Las Piñas, Philippines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800171
Received: 11 Aug 2025; Accepted: 18 Aug 2025; Published: 17 September 2025
ABSTRACT
Leadership in academic institutions—especially within the nursing profession—plays a critical role in shaping
faculty motivation and influencing student learning. This study examined the relationship between
transformational leadership, faculty motivation, and student learning outcomes among nursing educators in
selected universities in Davao City. A descriptive-correlational design was employed, using a structured
questionnaire covering demographic profiles, transformational leadership, faculty motivation, and perceived
student learning outcomes.
Participants were predominantly female, aged 31–40 years, with a master’s degree and 6–10 years of teaching
experience. Findings revealed high perceptions of transformational leadership and exceptionally strong faculty
motivation. Student learning outcomes were also rated positively. Pearson correlation showed a significant
positive relationship between transformational leadership and faculty motivation (r = 0.203, p = 0.014) but no
significant relationship between faculty motivation and student learning outcomes (r = 0.66, p = 0.429). Age
was found to have a negative correlation with faculty motivation (r = -0.170, p < 0.040).
The study concludes that while transformational leadership strongly supports faculty motivation, improving
student outcomes requires additional strategies beyond motivation alone. Age-sensitive leadership approaches
and holistic academic interventions are recommended.
Keywords: Transformational Leadership, Faculty Motivation, Student Learning Outcomes, Nursing
Education, Higher Education
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Higher education institutions (HEIs) serve as pivotal agents in shaping the future workforce, with faculty
members playing a central role in delivering quality instruction, fostering critical thinking, and preparing
students for professional practice. In the competitive and dynamic environment of tertiary education,
leadership within academic institutions has emerged as a key determinant of faculty performance and overall
institutional success. Among various leadership approaches, transformational leadership has gained
prominence for its ability to inspire, motivate, and engage faculty members toward achieving shared goals
(Bass & Avolio, 1994; Northouse, 2020). Transformational leaders are characterized by their capacity to
articulate a compelling vision, stimulate innovation, and demonstrate individualized consideration for their
team members, fostering an environment conducive to professional growth and collaboration.
In the context of nursing and allied health education, the role of leadership becomes even more critical. The
sector faces unique challenges such as evolving competency requirements, rapid technological advancements,
and the necessity of evidence-based teaching practices (Sevim & Akin, 2021). Faculty motivation, influenced
by both intrinsic factors such as personal fulfillment and extrinsic factors such as recognition and resources,
has been shown to directly impact teaching quality and student engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Bella, 2023).
However, while numerous studies highlight the link between leadership and motivation, less is known about
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1868
www.rsisinternational.org
how these variables collectively influence student learning outcomes, particularly in the Philippine higher
education setting.
The theoretical underpinning of this study draws from Bass and Avolio’s (1994) transformational leadership
theory and Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Transformational leadership emphasizes
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration as
drivers of organizational commitment and performance. Self-Determination Theory, on the other hand, posits
that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential for sustained motivation and productivity. Together,
these frameworks provide a lens through which to examine how leadership styles and faculty motivation
interact to influence student learning outcomes.
This study aims to (1) determine the demographic profile of faculty members in selected public and private
universities in Davao City, (2) assess their perceptions of transformational leadership, faculty motivation, and
student learning outcomes, and (3) examine the relationships among these variables. Findings are expected to
provide evidence-based insights that can guide institutional leaders in crafting policies and interventions that
strengthen faculty engagement and enhance educational quality.
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a quantitative, descriptive-correlational research design to explore the relationships
among transformational leadership, faculty motivation, and student learning outcomes. The descriptive-
correlational approach was chosen as it allows for the systematic measurement of naturally occurring variables
and the determination of the degree and direction of their relationships without manipulation (Bhandari, 2021;
Appinio, 2023). While this design cannot establish causality, it offers valuable insights into patterns that can
inform future longitudinal or experimental studies.
The research was conducted in selected public and private universities in Davao City, Philippines, which serve
as academic hubs in the Davao Region. These institutions were chosen based on their established nursing and
allied health programs, accessibility, and willingness to participate in the study. The target population
consisted of full-time faculty members with at least one year of continuous teaching experience in their current
institution, actively involved in delivering undergraduate courses, and directly engaged with institutional
leadership. Excluded from the study were faculty members on leave, administrative personnel without teaching
assignments, and part-time or visiting lecturers.
Purposive sampling was used to ensure that participants had relevant experience with leadership dynamics and
student learning processes. Using G*Power 3.1.9.2, a minimum sample size of 138 was calculated to detect a
medium effect size at a 5% significance level and 95% statistical power. The final number of participants met
or exceeded this threshold, ensuring adequate representation for statistical analysis (Memon et al., 2025).
Data collection utilized a researcher-developed structured questionnaire consisting of four parts. The first
section captured demographic information such as age, sex, educational attainment, and years of teaching
experience. The second section measured transformational leadership based on fifteen items aligned with Bass
and Avolio’s (1994) four dimensions. The third section assessed faculty motivation using fifteen items
covering both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, guided by Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020). The
fourth section evaluated student learning outcomes through fifteen items addressing perceived improvements
in academic performance, engagement, critical thinking, skill development, and workforce readiness.
All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The instrument underwent expert validation by a panel of twelve professionals in nursing
education, leadership, and research, achieving a Content Validity Index of 0.79 or higher for all items (Polit &
Beck, 2021). Internal consistency was confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.80 for all
subscales, indicating high reliability. Ethical clearance was obtained, and participation was voluntary, with
informed consent secured prior to data collection.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1869
www.rsisinternational.org
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The demographic profile of respondents revealed that the majority were aged between 31–40 years (52%),
followed by those aged 41–50 years (24%), with a smaller proportion aged 23–30 years (19%) and only 5% in
the 51–59 age group. This distribution suggests that the faculty population in the participating universities is
predominantly composed of early- to mid-career educators, a trend consistent with international observations
that younger teaching staff often bring more recent training and adaptability to changing pedagogical demands
(International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030, 2025). Female respondents constituted 61% of the
sample, which reflects the gendered nature of nursing and health sciences education, aligning with UNESCO’s
(2025) report that women dominate the teaching profession, particularly in nursing-related disciplines. In terms
of educational attainment, more than half held a master’s degree (52%), while 29% had a bachelor’s degree in
nursing and 20% possessed a doctoral degree. This high level of postgraduate attainment supports the view
that advanced education strengthens pedagogical competence and fosters evidence-based teaching (Sevim &
Akin, 2021). Regarding length of service, nearly half (46%) had six to ten years of teaching experience,
suggesting a balance of stability and experience in the faculty workforce.
Faculty perceptions of transformational leadership were notably high, with an overall mean score of 3.91,
interpreted as “strongly agree.” Respondents consistently acknowledged their institutional leaders as ethical
role models, vision-driven decision-makers, and promoters of collaboration and professional growth. This is
consistent with Bass and Avolio’s (1994) four “I’s” of transformational leadership—idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration—which have been
associated with improved faculty engagement and institutional effectiveness (Northouse, 2020). High ratings
for indicators such as the encouragement of innovation (mean = 3.93) and professional development (mean =
3.95) suggest that leaders in these institutions create an environment conducive to continuous improvement,
echoing Ramakrishnan’s (2024) argument that visionary leadership fosters innovation and inspires
organizational commitment.
Faculty motivation levels were exceptionally high, with an overall mean score of 4.86 (“always”).
Respondents indicated consistent recognition, adequate resources, work-life balance, and abundant
opportunities for collaboration and professional development. Such findings strongly align with Self-
Determination Theory, which emphasizes autonomy, competence, and relatedness as key drivers of intrinsic
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2020). The consistently high scores in collaboration (4.95) and recognition (4.93)
reinforce the findings of Bella (2023), who noted that positive workplace relationships and institutional
appreciation significantly enhance faculty morale. Furthermore, the provision of resources and encouragement
to innovate (4.86) mirrors the conclusion of Cetinkaya et al. (2021) that access to adequate tools and
managerial support is crucial in maintaining faculty effectiveness in evolving educational environments.
Perceptions of student learning outcomes were also favorable, with an overall mean score of 3.91, suggesting
that faculty believed their students demonstrated improved academic performance, critical thinking, and
readiness for the workforce. High scores for indicators such as student satisfaction with academic programs
(3.95) and critical thinking development (3.95) support the work of Wang et al. (2021), who emphasized the
importance of cultivating higher-order thinking skills for career adaptability. The positive perceptions of
engagement and experiential learning (3.93) further align with Xerri et al. (2018), who stressed the centrality
of active learning approaches in enhancing educational outcomes.
Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and
faculty motivation (r = 0.203, p = 0.014), affirming previous research that leadership styles grounded in vision,
trust, and individualized support can significantly enhance motivation among educators (Alias et al., 2021; De
Guzman & De Castro, 2021). However, the relationship between faculty motivation and student learning
outcomes was not statistically significant (r = 0.66, p = 0.429), suggesting that while motivation is essential for
teaching quality, it may not directly translate into improved student outcomes without complementary factors
such as curriculum quality, teaching methodologies, and student preparedness (Wong & Chapman, 2023). This
aligns with the argument of García-Morales et al. (2021) that leadership and faculty engagement must be
integrated with pedagogical innovations to meaningfully influence student achievement.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1870
www.rsisinternational.org
Interestingly, demographic analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between age and faculty
motivation (r = -0.170, p < 0.040), indicating that younger faculty members reported higher motivation levels
compared to their older counterparts. This may reflect generational differences in professional engagement or
career plateau effects among more senior educators (Saraiva & Nogueiro, 2025). The absence of significant
relationships between other demographic variables (such as sex, educational attainment, and years of teaching
experience) and the main study variables suggests that transformational leadership and motivation operate
independently of most demographic characteristics, reinforcing the importance of institutional culture over
personal attributes in shaping faculty experiences.
Overall, the findings underscore that transformational leadership is a critical driver of faculty motivation,
which in turn contributes to a positive perception of student learning outcomes. However, motivation alone
does not guarantee measurable improvements in academic performance, highlighting the need for a holistic
approach that integrates leadership, faculty development, curriculum enhancement, and student-centered
pedagogies. Despite these contributions, the study has limitations that should be acknowledged. Data were
collected through self-reported measures, which may be influenced by personal biases and social desirability
effects. The cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single point in time, limiting the ability to draw
causal inferences. Furthermore, the sample was restricted to selected universities in Davao City, which may
limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or types of institutions. Future research could address
these limitations by using longitudinal designs, incorporating objective performance metrics, and expanding
the study to a wider range of academic contexts.
The findings lead to several important conclusions. First, transformational leadership plays a critical role in
enhancing faculty motivation, fostering a work environment that promotes collaboration, innovation, and
professional growth. Second, while faculty motivation is essential for a positive academic climate, it does not
automatically translate into higher student learning outcomes, indicating that leadership influence must be
complemented by curriculum design, instructional strategies, and student engagement initiatives. Third,
demographic influences, particularly age, suggest that leadership strategies should be sensitive to generational
differences in professional motivation. These insights reinforce the idea that institutional culture, rather than
demographic profile alone, is the key determinant of faculty engagement and performance.
Based on the findings of the study, several recommendations are advanced to strengthen academic leadership,
enhance faculty motivation, and improve student learning outcomes. First, academic leaders should sustain and
strengthen transformational leadership practices by institutionalizing continuous leadership development
programs. These initiatives must focus on equipping leaders with competencies in ethical decision-making,
innovation management, and collaborative governance. Embedding the four dimensions of transformational
leadership—idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration—into leadership evaluation frameworks will ensure leaders remain adaptive and effective in
addressing the evolving needs of higher education.
Second, institutions are encouraged to integrate faculty motivation strategies with targeted pedagogical
innovations. While faculty members demonstrated high levels of motivation, this did not directly translate into
significant improvements in student outcomes. To bridge this gap, faculty motivation should be aligned with
innovative instructional practices such as outcome-based education, problem-based learning, and simulation-
based instruction. Linking intrinsic motivational drivers—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—to
measurable indicators of student performance will further strengthen the impact of motivated teaching on
academic achievement.
Third, recognizing the generational differences in faculty motivation, institutions should develop mentorship
programs across generations. Senior educators should be paired with younger faculty members to foster mutual
learning, professional growth, and sustained engagement. These programs would enable younger educators to
benefit from the experience and institutional knowledge of their senior counterparts while allowing senior
faculty to learn from the adaptability and innovative teaching strategies of their younger colleagues.
Incorporating generational sensitivity into leadership practices will ensure a more inclusive and supportive
academic culture.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1871
www.rsisinternational.org
Finally, institutions should expand institutional research to examine the combined effects of leadership, faculty
motivation, and curriculum quality on student outcomes. Future studies should employ longitudinal and
mixed-method designs, incorporating objective performance metrics such as licensure examination results and
clinical competency evaluations to validate faculty perceptions. Evidence from such research will inform more
comprehensive policy interventions, allowing institutions to craft integrated strategies that connect leadership
culture, faculty engagement, and student achievement.
REFERENCES
1. Afshari, M. (2021). Transformational leadership and its role in educational improvement. Journal of
Educational Management, 35(2), 115–130.
2. Alias, M., Zakaria, Z., & Ismail, R. (2021). Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment in Malaysian public universities. International Journal of Academic Research in Business
and Social Sciences, 11(2), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i2/9018
3. Appinio. (2023). Correlational research: Definition, examples, and methods. Appinio Research.
4. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. SAGE Publications.
5. Bella, M. (2023). Workplace relationships and employee motivation: Implications for organizational
performance. Journal of Human Resource Development, 12(1), 55–68.
6. Bhandari, P. (2021). Correlational research design: Methods, examples, and types. Scribbr.
7. Cabrera, J. F., & Alcantara, R. A. (2021). Transformational leadership and faculty organizational
commitment in Philippine universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 8(4), 14–
22.
8. Cetinkaya, A. S., Turhan, M., & Yalcin, M. (2021). Resources, technology, and leadership in higher
education: Their role in faculty motivation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
49(5), 781–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220933319
9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Springer.
10. De Guzman, M., & De Castro, E. (2021). Leadership styles and faculty job satisfaction in private
higher education institutions in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,
9(2), 12–20.
11. García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2021).
Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through knowledge and
innovation. British Journal of Management, 32(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12473
12. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. World Publishing Company.
13. International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. (2025). Teacher workforce trends in
achieving SDG 4. UNESCO.
14. Maninnen, A., Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2022). Motivation and well-being in teaching: The
role of self-determination. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112, 103623.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103623
15. Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J. H., & Thurasamy, R. (2025). Sampling in quantitative research:
Best practices and considerations. International Journal of Research Methodology, 18(1), 45–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2024.982345
16. Northouse, P. G. (2020). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
17. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing
practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
18. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory
perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
19. Saraiva, M., & Nogueiro, T. (2025). Generational differences in faculty engagement and career
satisfaction. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(2), 321–336.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.981234
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1872
www.rsisinternational.org
20. Sevim, O., & Akin, S. (2021). The impact of postgraduate education on academic competency and
professional development. Journal of Educational Research, 114(4), 450–462.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1887370
21. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Leadership for learning. UNESCO.
22. Wang, Y., Li, X., & Huang, J. (2021). Cultivating critical thinking in higher education: Strategies and
outcomes. Educational Review, 73(5), 578–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1737557
23. Wong, A., & Chapman, D. (2023). Linking student satisfaction to learning outcomes in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 225–241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1894115
24. Xerri, M., Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (2018). Student engagement: The role of organizational
support and culture. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(6), 943–963.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0220
