LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS AND EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION IN SELECTED HOSPITALS IN DELTA STATE NIGERIA

42 LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS AND EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION IN

SELECTED HOSPITALS IN DELTA STATE, NIGERIA

Ugo C. Okolie¹,Erakpotobo V. Oyovwevotu²

1Department of Public Administration, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria

2Department of Business Management, Dennis Osadebay University, Asaba, Nigeria

E-mail: okolie.ugo@yahoo.com

Abstract

This^l study examines the^l impact of^l effective leadership on^l staff job satisfaction in a few hospitals in^l Delta State, Nigeria. Convenience sampling and a^l cross-sectional^l research design^l were used.

For^l this^l study, a questionnaire^l was^l used^l as the research^l tool for^l data ^lcollection, and 107 respondents were deemed useful. The study's theoretical framework was the theory of transformational leadership. Correlation and^l linear regression^l analysis with^l the aid^l of Statistical^l Package for^l Social Sciences^l (SPSS) software version^l 23.0 were used^l to analysed the^l data that were gathered. The^l results of the^l study revealed^l that leadership^l effectiveness have positive significant^l influence on^l employees’ job satisfaction^l in selected^l hospitals in Delta^l State, Nigeria.

The^l study's conclusion is that^l employees' perceptions of organisational^l culture and^l leadership styles^l have a^l significant impact^l on their perceptions of^l job ^lsatisfaction, which in^l turn affects^l their performance^l and behavior. The happiness of the workforce will be influenced by a leadership style that is^l in line^l with the^l requirements of the^l organisation. According to^l the ^lstudy's

lfindings, hospital management is advised, among other things, to take into account employees' abilities and to unlock their subordinates' potential by engaging in more transformational^l leadership behavior^l and cultivating a^l positive, less-political^l work environment that^l will increase their^l employees' job ^lsatisfaction.

Keywords: Leadership effectiveness, Leadership style, Job satisfaction, Transformational leadership theory

Introduction

Depending on who is leading and who is being led, leadership can mean different things to different people. Leadership can take many different forms on any given day, including instructing, ^lcoaching, assigning, encouraging, ^lcounseling, guiding,

lcorrecting, protecting, elaborating, and^l observing. In order to^l exercise leadership, you must complete paperwork, preside over meetings, hold^l hands, defend ^ldecisions, consider the ^lfuture, and settle disputes. All

of^l these things will happen at once; none of them will take place in discrete steps. Think again if you believed that having more control over your time and tasks would come with being the boss. You'll learn, just like the first-time business owner that^l you have^l less control^l over your^l daily activities^l as you^l work to^l assist and uphold the^l group of people you^l lead. Managers and^l leaders are distinct roles. Even though they may^l be good ^lmanagers, not all^l managers can^l truly be called^l leaders. With^l their clear^l visions

43 and^l strategies geared toward a^l common

objective, managers who^l are leaders^l inspire,

lmotivate, and energize^l their workforce (Maulana, 2022). On^l the other^l hand, mainstream^l and traditional^l managers are^l more focused on daily operations and are short-term oriented. They are effective at managing, allocating, controlling, and organizing resources. Leadership has^l a greater^l impact on^l how employees^l feel about^l their ^ljobs. In ^ltoday's organisations, a^l leader's role has^l evolved, and^l a ^lleader's leadership style^l is crucial^l to the^l success of^l any organisation. True^l leaders, according^l to Mintzberg^l (2010), involve^l themselves in^l what they^l are actually doing^l rather than^l doing it^l for personal^l gain, and^l they engage^l others with^l their consideration and^l modesty.

Leadership^lj is one^l of the^l elements that^l affect how employees^l perceive organisational politics, which in turn affects how^l satisfied they^l are with^l their ^ljobs. The management of employees' perceptions of organisational politics^l that affect^l their performance^l is one^l of leadership's goals^l (Saleem, 2015).

Effective leaders^l with strong^l leadership qualities^l can reduce^l or moderate perceptions^l of organisational^l politics, which^l improves job^l satisfaction.

Ajobi and^l Owunna (2022) define leadership^l as a^l complex social process^l that is based on^l the shared values, abilities, and knowledge of both leaders and followers. Therefore, everything revolves around the ongoing process^l of creating and^l upholding a connection^l between those who^l aspire to^l lead and^l those who^l are ready to^l follow. The majority of^l organisational theorists concur that successful leadership is^l one of^l the most^l critical factors in^l the success and general performance^l of an^l organisation. Finding out what leadership^l is and^l what leaders^l do to^l ensure team^l and organisational success^l is a problem that affects most public service organisations. With^l the factors of^l trust,

organisational ^lculture, learning, ^lteamwork, and communication, effective^l leadership can^l promote change in^l organisations through^l innovation and improvement. The psychological well-being and growth of followers are among the various performance constructs that can be linked to leadership effectiveness. The results of^l the leadership^l determine the^l effectiveness of the leadership, which^l in turn^l affects how well the members perform. The^l ability of^l the leaders^l to successfully complete^l tasks, organisational ^lsurvival, and growth^l through their ability^l to achieve^l organisational goals are the most frequently used subjective measures of leadership effectiveness.

Additionally, improved organisational performance may result from improved leadership, as both effectiveness and profitability will rise (Tariku, Tolosa, Haile

& Yiberta, 2021).

Management can easily accomplish organisational goals if employees are comfortable with their superiors' leadership philosophies. In this regard, an organisation's workforce and the effectiveness of^l its leaders^l in setting direction for^l the workers^l to follow^l toward achieving the^l desired organisational goals^l determine the^l success or^l failure of^l the organisation. The^l growth of an^l organisation can be aided by an increase in personal effort from employees as well as an improvement in their abilities and communication skills as well as an increase in retention. Inappropriate leadership effectiveness is one of many factors^l that can^l either foster satisfaction^l or foster dissatisfaction^l in an organisation. It is a fact that many hospitals have ineffective hospital administrators who are unable to inspire their staff through effective leadership.

However, failing to pay attention to this internal factor has resulted in some unfavorable consequences, including high

44 employee^l turnover, ^labsenteeism,

dissatisfaction, and^l inappropriate behavior when^l interacting with^l other employees (Barasa & Kariuki, 2020). Previous studies have shown a direct correlation between external factors derived from the workplace and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction^l has also been^l linked to a^l variety of^l outside variables, including leadership^l styles, which can^l influence how^l employees feel^l about their^l jobs (Batugal^l & Tindowen, ^l2019).

Therefore, the focus of this^l study is^l on the relationship^l between effective leadership^l and employee’ job^l satisfaction in^l selected hospitals in Delta State, Nigeria.

Review of Related Literature Employee’s Job Satisfaction

Due^l to its^l importance for employee^l behavior and^l organisational welfare, job^l satisfaction commonly^l defined as^l the pleasurable^l or positive^l emotional state^l resulting from^l the appraisal^l of ^lone's job^l or job^l experiences has^l been the^l subject of numerous studies among^l researchers and^l industrial psychologists^l for almost^l a

lcentury. Given the complexity of this^l construct and^l its many ^ldimensions, including affective, ^lbehavioral, cognitive, and^l situational, numerous researchers^l have developed^l theories that^l attempt to pinpoint the^l precise variables that influence satisfaction^l while also introducing a^l wide range of measurement^l tools (Irina, 2022).

An employee's sense of job satisfaction^l is a^l result of^l a combination^l of physiological and^l psychological elements. In reality, determining a person's effective leadership regarding their position within an organisation is what defines job satisfaction.

A collection of both positive^l and negative^l emotions, attitudes, and^l beliefs that^l employees have^l about their^l work are referred to as job satisfaction. Additionally, it is a psychological state connected to both internal and^l external motives (Chukwura^l,

2017). This^l internal emotion is^l thought to play a variety of roles within an organisation and is regarded as an underlying principle in human resources.

Job^l satisfaction is^l a type^l of organisational behavior^l that displays different attitudes toward a given job. Because both depend on how satisfied a person is with their personal and social lives, it obtains both positive and negative energies that are present in those realms (Fayzhall, Asbari, Purwanto, Goestjahjanti, Yuwono, Radita, Yulia, Cahyono & Suryani, 2020). According to Shrestha (2019), work organisations should develop into a^l great social^l system that^l supports human resources^l because they play a^l significant role in^l achieving an^l organisation's objectives. Employee satisfaction should also receive a lot of consideration because it is a crucial factor that can impact organisational performance and is a fundamental human need.

Additionally, job satisfaction^l is a^l known factor^l in the^l emergence of^l behavioral organisation and^l reflects employees' inner^l feelings toward^l their work^l )Manzoor, Wei, Nurunnabi, Subhan, Shah, and Fallatah's 2019). Therefore, changing^l the level^l of this^l fundamental need will^l directly affect^l the outcome^l of the^l organisation. Recognizing these factors can aid in enhancing job satisfaction, which can be^l influenced by a^l variety of^l factors. Internal and external motivations are^l the two^l main categories^l into which these factors fall in Maslow's hierarchy^l and Herzberg^l theory (Masa'deh, 2016). These motivations may occasionally have^l a negative^l impact on^l job ^lsatisfaction, which could cause unusual behaviors among employees within an organisation.

Leadership is viewed as an interpersonal strategy in which a leader makes an effort to identify and satisfy the needs of followers.

Therefore, a^l leader's ability^l to persuade followers can be^l used to accomplish an

45 organisation's goals. In^l order to^l meet the^l

goals and^l needs of the^l group as a whole, leadership is a set of perspectives that assists in enhancing others' propensities and behaviors (Jabbar & Hussin, 2019). In actuality, a company's goal, direction, and employee programs are determined by its leadership style.

Abraham Maslow, one^l of the^l early proponents^l of motivation^l theory, classified^l human needs^l into five^l categories in ascending^l order, with^l the most^l important need^l occupying the^l lower ^llevel. These categories are: physiological ^lneeds, safety and^l security ^lneeds, social ^lneeds, self-esteem^l needs, and^l self-actualization^l needs (Beebe

& Masterson, 2015; ^lHee, Yan, ^lRizal, Kowang & ^lFei, 2018). According^l to

lMaslow, a person^l cannot progress to^l the next^l level of^l need until all of the^l needs at the lower level have been met or can be reasonably met. This theory holds that a need that has been met no longer serves as motivation. ^lHerzberg's two-factor^l theory, which he proposed, is^l comparable to Maslow's needs-based motivation theory.

According to the ^ltwo-factor ^ltheory, there are^l two types of human ^lneeds: the motivators (satisfiers^l) and the hygiene^l factor (dissatisfiers^l). According to Herzberg, satisfaction^l and dissatisfaction^l are two^l distinct variables that do not^l belong to the same continuum. "Job dissatisfaction is the opposite of job satisfaction" (Hee ^let al,

l2018: 334). The hygiene^l factors are^l those fundamental biological^l requirements that, if not^l met by the job, may prevent the employee from accepting the position.

Although the hygiene factors by themselves do not result in job satisfaction, their absence from the workplace will; salary, security, working conditions, and other factors fall under the category of hygiene.

Factors related to hygiene lessen workplace dissatisfaction. On^l the other^l hand,

motivators^l are those^l human needs^l for success and psychological^l development that are connected to^l the ^ljob, such as^l achievement recognition, ^lawards, promotions, etc (Ndibe & Ojiula, 2019).

Numerous studies have demonstrated a connection between organisational effectiveness and workplace productivity and job satisfaction. Absenteeism, low morale, and turnover are some other attitudes and behavior-related aspects of job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction may cause a worker to leave the company, which would have^l a negative impact^l on productivity.

Employee^l job ^lsatisfaction, on the^l other

lhand, promotes high productivity and reduces absenteeism and turnover (Ndibe &

Ojiula, 2019). As a result, leadership is^l faced with^l the challenge^l and responsibility of^l inspiring workers to improve job satisfaction^l and productivity. This is^l due to^l the fact^l that each person is unique, and^l what motivates one^l person may^l not motivate^l another. However, leaders frequently fall into the^l trap of assuming^l that motivation^l is a ^lone-size-fits^l-all phenomenon (Cohen^l, 2012). From the aforementioned, it is clear that^l the human factor^l is important^l in raising employee job^l satisfaction and productivity.

By thinking about the employees and not limiting them to a limited set of tasks, an organisation can gain a competitive advantage by managing people effectively and efficiently (Kumar, Duhan & Haleem, 2016). Since team members and leaders are encouraged to start business and behavioral endeavors like^l job ^lenrichment, transformational ^lleadership, etc., to^l make the^l job appealing and^l fulfilling, it was^l advised that leadership^l look forward^l to planning^l and implementing^l some corrective^l actions towards^l efficient and^l effective performance^l of individuals^l (Kumar et^l al.,

l2016).

46 However, there are some things that, in

developing nations, particularly Nigeria, could improve job satisfaction: (i) a good^l salary; (ii) regular^l payment of^l salaries; (iii^l) lovely fringe ^lbenefits; (iv) a conducive^l work

lenvironment; (v) good leadership^l and social^l connections; and (vi) the^l perception of a fair promotion^l system within^l an organisation.

These^l elements are inducements that^l will result in the^l contentment, fulfillment, and^l happiness that characterizes a job well-done (Okolie, 2019). Job satisfaction is more and more often seen as^l a "win^l-win" strategy^l for both employers^l and ^lemployees. Ejiogu (^l1978) came to the conclusion that top management can tell how satisfied^l people are^l with their^l jobs by looking at^l these levels. It results in an improved outlook, which is helpful in identifying particular training needs. Additional advantages include increased productivity, decreased absenteeism, decreased use of sick days, improved hiring and retention^l rates with^l associated cost^l savings, decreased employee stress and^l loyalty, etc.

Advantages job satisfaction to the employer include, Productivity increased, costs associated with recruiting, training, and turnover decreased, organisational effectiveness and flexibility increased, absenteeism decreased, customer and employee loyalty increased, employee retention improved, teamwork improved, accidents, waste, and breakage decreased, and corporate image improved. While the benefits for the employee include Improved employee loyalty and morale; Increased employee commitment to the organisation; and encouraged employees to perform above and beyond; Lessening of employee stress, The output of the workforce is higher; Enhanced employee contentment and self-worth;

Enhanced employee well-being, focus, and confidence; Possibilities for work-life balance and Better communication between employees, management, and clients (Okolie, 2019).

Leadership Effectiveness

The act of^l leading a^l group of^l people or^l an organisation is^l referred to^l as ^lleadership, as is the^l condition or role of^l being a ^lleader.

Leadership is the act of selecting, empowering, and encouraging one or more followers to use their various talents, skills, and abilities to grow spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and voluntarily. The^l leader obtains this^l power by^l sincerely communicating a vision^l for the future^l in terms^l that the^l followers can understand, as well as by upholding certain principles^l and values^l in a^l concerted effort^l to fulfill the^l organisational purpose and^l goals. In order for this organisation to survive, leadership refers to the function of a person who can persuade others to organize, achieve, and improve job performance (Vermeeren, Kuipers & Steijn 2014). Lin, Qian, Li, and Chen (2018) define^l leadership as^l a practice in^l which a^l leader motivates a^l group of^l people or followers to^l achieve common objectives. Currently, leaders^l do not^l simply rely on their^l legitimate authority to^l persuade their subordinates to^l carry out or follow orders; rather, they^l are more^l concerned with^l working with^l them and piqueing and^l sustaining their ^lsubordinates' interest (Marasinghe & Anusha, 2018). The key to effective leadership is the ability to recognize^l the impact of^l the personality^l traits of group^l members, particularly in^l circumstances where group^l performance requires personality^l variables beyond^l those possessed^l by the^l leader.

Effective leadership^l is the^l ability of^l the superior to carry^l out their duties and guide the team toward the organisation's goal.

Leadership^l effectiveness was^l defined as the^l ability of^l a leader to^l persuade subordinates to support organisational goals. The attitudes, actions, satisfaction, and acceptance of followers can also be used^l to

47 gauge a^l leader's ^leffectiveness. The

subordinate believed that their leaders were successful for both the organisation and for them (Frew et al., 2021). In both public and private settings, Yazdanifard (2015) found^l that people^l who display transformational^l leadership are perceived^l as being^l more effective^l leaders^l whose subordinates^l perform better^l than^l people who^l only display transactional^{l l}leadership. The behavior of transformational leaders promotes

lsubordinates' awareness of^l the unique role^l they should^l play in^l the organisation and^l offers personal ^lguidance, which raises perceptions of the leader's effectiveness.

Similar to how improving leaders' effectiveness fosters favorable attitudes and performance in followers, corrective transactional leadership with contingent rewards also works well. Furthermore, Frew et al. (2012) discovered that when supervisors develop a particular leadership skill, subordinates frequently report that leaders are highly effective (i.e., active^l transactional management^l by ^lexception).

Furthermore, according to Judge, Bobo, Thoresen, and^l Patton (2001), laissez-faire and transactional leadership are ineffective and/or negatively correlate with how effective^l a leader^l is perceived^l to ^lbe.

Because of how quickly the business environment is changing, managers' use of transformational/transactional leadership results in^l higher levels^l of subordinate motivation and^l productivity. As a^l result, the issue has grown in significance and is now crucial to the effectiveness of leaders.

Theoretical Framework

Bass's conceptualization of the^l transformational leadership^l model serves as the^l foundational theory for this^l study. James Gregor Burns' seminal publication from 1978 is where transformational leadership theory first appeared, but Bass expanded on it in 1985. (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978;

Givens, 2008; Eshetu, 2018). The two had different ideas about the transactional^l and transformational^l leadership models. Burns^l proposed that transactional^l and transformational^l leadership are^l two opposite ends of a^l continuum, with^l a leader^l being one^l of the^l two, but^l Bass proposed that^l transformational leadership^l improves transactional leadership^l by influencing follower motivation^l and creativity^l (Bass,

l1985). Bass defined transformational^l leadership as^l a combination^l of four^l elements: idealized ^linfluence, inspiring motivation, intellectual^l stimulation, and^l individual consideration^l (Bass & ^lRiggio, 2006; Eshetu, 2018; Torlak & Kuzey, 2019).

Bass (1985) added that by involving

lemployees in the^l decision-making^l process, transformational^l leadership prevents the^l employee from^l feeling alienated^l at work^l and raises their level^l of job^l satisfaction.

Employees are motivated and^l committed to their^l work when transformational leaders share with them the organisation's long-term vision. Furthermore, by coordinating personal goals with organisational objectives, transformational leaders meet^l the unique needs^l of each of their^l team members. They inspire their staff members by recognizing and rewarding exceptional accomplishments. According^l to ^lLi, Sajjad,

lWang, Muhammad-^lAli, Khaqan, and Amina^l (2019), transformational^l leadership is^l exemplified by leaders who inspire, stimulate the mind, and empower their subordinates in order to help them develop innovative work behavior. This view is consistent with that of Bass (1985).

Transformational leadership creates opportunities for each employee's personal and professional growth, which promotes the success and long-term viability of the organisation (Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013;

Kabeyi , 2018). It is a monumental task for management to determine an organisation's

48 mission and then carefully carry out the

plans necessary to make it a reality.

Fundamentally, the secret to success is leadership that can turn any workforce, no matter how big, into a competitive team with the required synergy to achieve jointly agreed-upon corporate goals and aspirations.

When followers describe their leader as charismatic, trustworthy, self-assured, and ethical, idealistic traits are evidently present.

By instilling pride, faith, and respect in his or her followers, a leader can motivate them to identify and follow in the footsteps of their heroes. They demonstrate conviction, communicate their underlying beliefs, foster trust, take positions on contentious issues, and highlight the importance^l of dedication, purpose, and^l the moral implications of^l decisions (Erakpotobo, Okolie & Memeh, 2022).

The theory falls^l short of^l explaining how^l transformational leadership and^l successful workplace^l outcomes interact. The^l theory would^l be more^l persuasive if^l the key^l influence mechanisms were^l better understood^l and applied^l to explain^l how various^l types of^l behavior affect various^l mediating variables^l and ^loutcomes. The popularity of transformational leadership has increased recently, despite the many criticisms it has received. For ^linstance, studies have shown that^l managers in^l various contexts, such^l as the^l military and^{l l}business, found that^l transformational^l leaders^l were evaluated^l as^l more ^leffective, higher^l

lperformers, more ^lpromotable, and more interpersonally^l sensitive than^l their transactional^l counterparts. Empirical^l evidence also^l shows^l that transformational^l leadership^l is strongly^l correlated with^l employee^l work^l outcomes such^{l l}as: lower^l turnover ^lrates, higher^l level^l of ^lproductivity, employee^{l l}satisfaction, creativity, and^l goal^l attainment^l and follower^{l l}well-^lbeing.

Transformational leadership^l enhances the^l

lmotivation, morale, and^l performance^l of^l followers through^l a^l variety of^{l l}mechanisms.

These include^l encouraging followers^l to take^l greater ownership of their^l work, challenging^l followers to do^l so, and^l understanding the^l strengths and^l weaknesses of^l followers so^l the leader^l can assign^l followers to^l tasks that^l will improve their ^lperformance. Connecting

lfollowers' sense of^l identity and^l self to^l the project and^l the collective identity^l of the organisation is ^lanother. In its^l ideal ^lstate, it brings^l about significant^l and constructive^l change in^l the followers^l with the^l ultimate objective^l of transforming^l followers into^l leaders.

Leadership Effectiveness and Employee’s Job Satisfaction

The Hawthorne experiments, which were carried out between 1924 and 1932, showed that employees' behavior^l is not^l entirely explained^l by financial^l rewards, but rather by their attitudes (Ivancevic^l & ^lMatterson, 1999). The^l human relations^l movement consequently emerged, demonstrating that^l valuing ^lemployees' job satisfaction^l is an important aspect of^l leadership (Judge^l et al., 2001). In^l the latter ^lstudy, it was discovered that the emphasis placed by servant leadership on creating^l a sense^l of community^l (a relational^l emphasis) and^l clarifying goals^l (a task^l emphasis) is^l likely to^l encourage greater flexibility in^l defining job^l performance ^land, as a^l result, should^l raise the^l overall organisation's measure of^l job

lsatisfaction. Employees' attitudes and feelings toward their^l jobs are referred^l to as^l job satisfaction^l (Spector, ^l1997). Spector also^l made it^l clear that^l both individual characteristics^l and aspects of the workplace have an impact on job satisfaction.

Employees form a^l mindset about^l their jobs based^l on their^l actions, ^lconvictions, and feelings^l (Kalsoom, Khan & Zubair, 2018).

The level of employee satisfaction is^l typically regarded^l as a^l crucial factor^l for

49 organisational success. Employees^l are

perceived^l to be^l satisfied with^l their jobs^l if they^l believe that they are fulfilling and rewarding (Shrestha, ^l2019). According to^l the principles^l of both transformational^l and transactional^l leadership, leaders^l have a^l significant impact on how their^l employees carry out their tasks, and^l this impact has the^l potential to^l raise employees' general levels of job ^lsatisfaction.

lTherefore, a good manager should^l be able^l to identify the^l key factors that^l influence employees' job satisfaction^l in the company.

According to the^l majority of studies, a content employee produces more work because he would invest more free time in it.

Similarly, Napoleon was quoted by Bakotic (2016) as saying that^l "the effectiveness^l of the^l army depends^l on its^l size, ^ltraining, experience, and^l morale, specifying that^l morale is^l worth more^l than all^l other extrinsic factors of job satisfaction. By showing that^l intrinsic job^l satisfactions are^l derived from^l what an^l employee experiences in^l the workplace, such^l as skill^l development,

lresponsibility, and others^l to achieve^l self-

lactualization, Metwally, ^lEl-bishbishy, and^l Navar (^l2014) support the findings^l of Kalleberg^l in ^l1977. Extrinsic factors include management, corporate policies, and other external rewards (e.g., salaries and working conditions). In both^l public and^l private

lschools, Mesh'al and Adnan^l (2018) conducted^l research to^l ascertain the effects^l of autocratic^l and democratic^l leadership styles^l on job^l satisfaction. They^l discovered that^l the employees' job^l satisfaction is positively^l impacted by^l the leadership^l styles.

lBushra, Usman, and^l Naveed (2011^l) investigated whether organisational politics^l played a^l mediating role^l in the^l relationship^l between leadership^l style and job

lsatisfaction. The study sample was^l chosen using^l convenience sampling^l using non- probability by the researcher, who also used

quantitative research and descriptive research design. According to^l the ^lstudy's conclusions, transactional leadership^l has a^l negative impact on^l job satisfaction while transformational^l leadership has^l a positive one.

134^l private field^l employees, including^l bank

lemployees, were the subjects of Chang^l and

lLee's (2007) investigation into the^l relationship and interaction between^l leadership ^lstyle, organisational culture, and job^l satisfaction. The^l findings showed that^l organisational culture and leadership style were very likely to^l have a^l positive impact on^l employees' job ^lsatisfaction, particularly when those employees^l shared their ^lleaders' vision within the^l context of^l a transformational^l leadership^l style. As^l a

lresult, cooperation between subordinates and superiors^l serves both the interests of the organisation and the individuals involved. In 2011, Bushra et ^lal. looked into^l the connection^l between transformational^l leadership and^l job satisfaction among^l 133 Pakistani^l bank ^lemployees. 42% of^l participants reported^l that transformational^l leadership had^l a favorable effect^l on their^l overall job^l satisfaction, demonstrating^l their preference^l for this^l particular leadership^l style. The^l relationship between^l job commitment^l and job^l satisfaction has been^l shown to^l be ^lreciprocal, and transformational leadership generally appears to influence both job ^lcommitment and job^l satisfaction (Emery & Barker, 2007; ^lRiaz, Akram &

Ijaz, 2011). The^l ability of the leaders^l to promote^l those values linked to^l achieving goals and place emphasis on how the former are affected by the former's performance is what^l gives this^l style of leadership^l its ^lpower.

The idea^l of a^l shared vision, in^l which the^l success of the^l company is^l closely related to^l each employee's personal development^l and achievement, motivates employees to work harder (Givens, 2008). The following

50

lresearch hypothesis was^l developed based^l on the^l literature ^lreview.

Hypothesis: ^lH1: There is^l no significant^l relationship between^l leadership effectiveness and employees’ job satisfaction in^l selected hospitals in Delta^l State, Nigeria^l

Research Methods

The^l study adopted^l cross-sectional^l research design. 134 workers of^l Pinnacle Ace Medical and Consultancy Service, Uvwie (27), Lily Hospital, Warri (24), Ufor Hospital, Ughelli (27), Grace Clinic and Maternity, Effurun (29) and Twins Clinic, Warri (27) in Delta State constituted the population of this^l study. For the^l purpose of^l this study^l and to achieve a reliable result, the questionnaire was administered among the hospital management and employees of the selected hospitals using ^lnon-probability sampling^l technique. The^l questionnaire items were adopted from^l the literature, while an initial pilot study of 23 workers with replacement was^l carried out^l to establish the^l study reliability and^l validity using Smart PLS Criterion.

Table 1: Validity and Reliability Results

Construct Number of items

Composite Reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha

Average Variance Extract

Leadership effectiveness Employees’

job satisfaction

9 9

0.876 0.853

0.780 0.795

0.643 0.597

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Table 1 showed that the values range from 0.853 to 0.876 for composite reliability and 0.780 to 0.795 for Cronbach’s Alpha respectively for the two constructs. This implies that all the constructs are reliable as the values of composite and the Crombach’s Alpha coefficients are above the threshold^l of ^l0.70 (Hair^l, Hult, Ringle^l & ^lSarstedt,

2017). The^l reliability results are supported by the discriminant validity values of^l Average Variance^l Extract (AVE), which are^l also above the^l standard of ^l0.50 (Hair et ^lal., 2017). Therefore, the two constructs for this study showed high reliability and internal consistency.

There are various scales^l and questionnaires^l that have been^l developed for^l the purpose of measuring leadership^l effectiveness (behavior and^l styles). The^l Ohio State University's academic community created the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, a widely used scale for evaluating leadership behavior (LBDQ).

There are two aspects to leadership

lbehavior: 1. Establishing ^lStructure, which refers^l to how the^l leader will^l likely define and^l organize both^l his and her^l own role and^l that of^l subordinates in^l the effort^l to achieve^l the goal. It entails actions^l taken in^l an effort^l to plan^l work, professional^l relationships, and

lobjectives. 2. ^lConsideration, which is the^l degree to which^l a person^l has professional relationships^l characterized by^l trust and^l respect for^l the opinions and feelings^l of subordinates (Strogdill, ^l1963). According to a factor ^lanalysis, the two^l questionnaire dimensions, Initiating^l Structure and^l Consideration, explained ^l83% of^l the variance^l in leader^l behavior (Halpin &

lWiener, 1957). Initiating^l Structure and^l Consideration are^l separate dimensions (Reddin, 1970).

For the purposes of this study, Avolio, Bass, and Jung's scales were used to measure leadership effectiveness (1995). The^l Multifactor Leadership^l Questionnaire (MLQ^l) has nine^l scales that^l are based^l on three^l dimensions of^l transactional ^lleadership, one scale^l of ^lnon-leadership, and^l five dimensions^l of transformational^l leadership.

The following are the elements of transformational leadership: 1. Idealized^l

51 Influence – Attributed^l and ^l2. Idealized

lInfluence – Behavior, which^l involves gaining^l respect, trust^l and confidence^l toward the^l leader and^l transmission to^l followers by^l the leader^l of a^l strong sense^l of mission^l and the^l vision of^l the desired^l future^l (e.g. “I^l have^l trust^l in my^{l l}superior’s ability^l to^l overcome^l any ^lobstacle”), 3. Inspirational^{l l}Motivation, which^l is when^l a leader^l communicates^l a^l vision with^l confidence^l and^l increases optimism^l and^l enthusiasm^l in its^l attainability^l (e.g. “My^l superior^l uses^l symbols and^l image^ls to^l focus our^{l l}efforts”), ^l4. Intellectual

lStimulation, which^l is^l defined as^l a^{l l}leader’s way^l of actively^l encouraging^l followers^l to question^l the^l status^l quo and^l to^l challenge^l their own^l and^{l l}others’ assumptions^l and beliefs^l (e.g., “my^l superior^l enables^l me to^l think^l about^l old problems^l in^l new^l ways”), 5.

Individual^l consideration^l which^l is described^l as^l personalized^l attention to^l the^l needs^l of all^l

lfollowers, making^l each person^l feel valued^l and^l treating^l him/her^l differently^l but^l equitably on^l a^{l l}one-to-one^l basis^l (e.g., “my^l superior^l treats^l me as^l an^l individual^l and not^l as^l part^l of an^l anonymous^{l l}group”). The dimensions^l of^l Transactional^l Leadership ^lare:

1. Contingent^{l l}Reward, which^l refers to^l an^l exchange^l of rewards^l between leaders^l and^l followers^l in which^l effort^l is^l rewarded by^l providing^l rewards^l for good^l performance^l or^l threats and^l disciplines^l for^l poor performance^l (e.g. “my^l superior^l makes^l sure that^l there^l is^l a close^l agreement^l between^l what ^lhe/she^l expects^l me to^l do^l and^l what I^l can^l get^l from

lhim/her^l for^l my ^lefforts”), 2. Management^l-

lby-Exception^l – Active, which^l describes^l leaders^l characterized as^l monitors^l who^l detect mistakes^l and^{l l}3. Management-^lby- Exception^l – ^lPassive, which describes^l a^l leader^l that intervenes^l with^{l l}his/her group^l only when^l procedures^l and^l standards for^l accomplishing^l tasks^l are not^{l l}met. The^l scale of^{l l}Non-Leadership^l is called^{l l}Laissez-faire^l and exhibits^l when leaders^l avoid^l clarifying^l

expectations, addressing^l conflicts^l and^l making ^ldecisions.

The general level of satisfaction and the employees' affective attitude toward their jobs were used to gauge employee job satisfaction. The^l Job in^l General Scale^l (JIG) Ironson (1989) and^l the Job^l Satisfaction Index^l (JSI) Brayfield and Rothe (1951) are the most widely used global^l scales for^l measuring satisfaction^l with more^l than one^l element. These scales contain 18^l positive or^l negative ^lwork-related ^lstatements, such as "I do^l my work^l with enthusiasm^l most ^ldays," "I find^l real pleasure^l in my^l work," and^l "I find^l my work^l quite ^lunpleasant," which participants^l rate on a^l 5-point^l scale. As opposed to that, when^l completing the^l JIG

lscale, respondents are^l asked to^l think about^l their work^l as a^l whole and^l to answer^l with

“^lyes”, “no” ^lor “I cannot^l answer” to^l what extent^l it corresponds^l to 18^l different adjectives^l e.g., "excellent^l", "pleasant",

"^lundesirable", etc. however, the Spector’s job^l satisfaction scales (JSS^l) developed in^l 1985 was^l used for this study and^l is currently^l available in^l two ^lforms – JSS 1, measures^l nine job^l satisfaction facets^l (pay,

lpromotion, supervision, fringe^l benefits, contingent^l rewards, operating^l conditions,

lcoworkers, nature of^l work and^l communication), and^l the newer^l commercial

lversion – JSS ^l2, which measures^l overall

lsatisfaction, plus seven^l satisfaction facets^l (salary, promotion^l opportunities,

lsupervision, fringe ^lbenefits, coworkers, tasks^l and ^lcommunication) (Spector, 1985).

The^l hypothesis of the study was analysed using inferential statistics of correlation^l and linear^l regression analysis^l with the^l aid of^l Statistical Package^l for Social^l Sciences (^lSPSS) software version ^l23.0. Out of the 134 questionnaire administered, only 107 were^l retrieved and^l used for^l data analysis, given us a^l 79.9% of response ^lrate. Out of