This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 13 November 2014, At: 15:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Academics transformationalleadership: an investigation of heads ofdepartment leadership behaviours inMalaysian public universitiesLokman Tahira, Tina Abdullahb, Fadzli Alia & Khadijah Daudaa Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Scudai,Malaysiab Language Academy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Scudai,MalaysiaPublished online: 25 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Lokman Tahir, Tina Abdullah, Fadzli Ali & Khadijah Daud (2014)Academics transformational leadership: an investigation of heads of department leadershipbehaviours in Malaysian public universities, Educational Studies, 40:5, 473-495, DOI:10.1080/03055698.2014.932272

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.932272

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03055698.2014.932272http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.932272

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Academics transformational leadership: an investigation of headsof department leadership behaviours in Malaysian publicuniversities

Lokman Tahira*, Tina Abdullahb, Fadzli Alia and Khadijah Dauda

aFaculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Scudai, Malaysia; bLanguageAcademy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Scudai, Malaysia

(Received 4 March 2013; final version received 30 April 2014)

Presently, the role and the function of universities in Malaysia have beendescribed as being in a state of change. Several strategies have been adopted toassist in the re-branding of higher institutions of learning. As a consequence, aneffective model of leadership practices, particularly at the Malaysian academicdepartmental level, has to be generated in order to replace the traditional leader-ship practices in meeting the national aspirations. The purpose of this study wasto investigate the relationship between department heads leadership behaviourwith academics organisational commitment. Survey responses from 430 aca-demics from Malaysian public universities were received and analysed. Themain finding of this study reveals that the adoption of encouraging leadershipbehaviour (Kouzes and Posners Transformational Leadership) shows a 55%direct positive relationship with academics organisational commitment, withdemographical factors playing no role as a moderator with either variable. Thisreinforces the rationalisation for adopting the model within the Malaysianacademic setting, where department heads should indeed lead the academicorganisation.

Keywords: transformational leadership behaviours; academics head ofdepartments; public universities; Malaysia

1. Introduction

With the aim of becoming a well-established regional education hub and producingknowledgeable workers to cater for development of the nation, Malaysia is utilisingthe strong and rising influences of globalisation in order to develop and expand therole of higher education for economic as well as human capital development (Siew2013). Since the 1997 economic crisis, Malaysia has established a reputation forbeing one of the pioneers in the development of transnational educationalprogramme (Barjunid 1996).

Leadership at the academic department level has taken on a new and importantrole in the expansion of higher education into the new landscape of the twenty-firstcentury. In many instances, department heads in public universities are seen as thebuilding blocks of academic leadership. They are the leaders who are in direct con-tact with faculty, staff and students on a daily basis. Academic department heads

*Corresponding author. Email: p-lokman@utm.my

2014 Taylor & Francis

Educational Studies, 2014Vol. 40, No. 5, 473495, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.932272

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

mailto:p-lokman@utm.myhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.932272

have been described as the most important administrators at the university (Gmelch2004). Their qualities have been correlated with influence on teaching and researchdevelopment among faculty members and students, who are the core business ofuniversities (Bisbee 2005). The responsibilities of academic department headsinclude managing the academic, faculty, student and budgetary issues; external com-munication; office management; space management; and fund raising (Hecht 2004).Department heads also function as leaders when they focus on the key aspects oforganisational culture: mission, vision, engagement and adaptability (Bowman2002). The greater responsibility may become a heavy load, particularly if thedepartment head is not suited for such a position because of his or her lack of train-ing in administrative issues and responsibilities; many resort to focusing only on themanagerial functions in order to keep the department functioning on a daily basis(Hecht 2004).

Moreover, the selection of ideal academic leaders has become a problem due tothe lack of competent candidates. More and more administrative positions are beingfilled by those who are not satisfactorily prepared for this complex job. In addition,department heads are usually not chosen based solely on their leadership knowledge,skills or abilities. Very few academic chairpersons possess the entire catalogue ofleadership traits that the experts suggest exemplary leaders should have. Most arechosen because of their intellect, research abilities and renown in their specific field(Gilley 2003). However, these qualities do not necessarily equate to effective leader-ship and the wisdom that effective leadership requires (Bass 1990). In addition, theacademic leaders were also left with no formal leadership education or training inadministration (Hecht et al. 1999; Zahrah 2002).

1.1. Academics head of departments leadership

In recent years, several studies have been conducted on academic leadership inhigher education. These studies have confirmed what many department heads knowfrom personal experience; academic leadership is complex and demanding, with sub-stantial stress, high burnout and high turnover (Brown and Moshavi 2002). Gmelchand Miskinys (1993) stated that the position of department heads is one of leader-ship, charged with challenges of developing a departments future and of buildingfaculty vitality. Leader effectiveness in higher education has become a major issue,both at institutional and departmental levels. Traditional studies of university gover-nance often place heads of department within ventrally driven structures and pro-cesses (Bolton 2004; Kezar 2000). However, little empirical research has beenconducted on academic leaders, especially the department heads in the Malaysianhigher educational scene (Morris 2008) even though 80% of all university decisionsare being made at the departmental level (Bisbee 2005; Gmelch and Miskinys 1993).

To advance the study of leadership in higher education, it is essential to giveattention to department head leadership. The position of the academic departmenthead in higher education is one that requires leadership, administrative skills andscholarship (Lucas 2000), and bridges the gap between faculty and administration.Carrol (1991) also mentioned that new department heads have not necessarily beenleaders before for the most part, they were appointed without any formal trainingfor a leadership or managerial role. Gmelch and Miskinys (1993) also highlightedthat 86% of department heads reported their scholarship diminished as they fulfilledthe many roles of department head. Furthermore, being heads of department, they

474 L. Tahir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

have to interact with their academic staff on a daily basis and make decisions basedon the objectives and vision of the faculty (Hecht et al. 1999). While departmentheads are not considered to hold a prestigious high-profile position in higher educa-tion, they are needed to ensure the efficient day-to-day operations of the academicdepartment (Hecht et al. 1999). However, there have been only few studies examin-ing the leadership practices of department heads in the higher education context(Bryman and Lilley 2009; Hamidifar, Vinitwatanakhun, and Rahnamay Roodposhti2013). Therefore, in this study, we try examined the leadership behaviours of thedepartment heads using the Kouzes and Posners transformational leadership modelassessed by academic staff from Malaysian public universities, based on the assump-tion that department heads are the academic leaders responsible for the facultiesperformance, and they would play their roles effectively through their own extraor-dinary attributes; while in the leadership role, they were able to share the universi-ties vision and guide, align, motivate, inspire and elevate the academics spirits.

2. Purpose and theoretical foundation of the study

This study was designed to examine the perceptions of public universities academ-ics view their heads of department as transformational leaders. We also measure thelevel of organisational commitment of academic staff in order to discover whetherMalaysian public universities academics have a strong commitment to their univer-sities. In addition, we determine which transformational leadership behaviours of theheads of departments influence or predict the academics organisational commit-ment. Finally, we also pose the question of whether academics demographic factors(age, years of service and gender) have moderating effects on their organisationalcommitment.

The theoretical leadership model for this study was based on the Kouzes andPosners transformational leadership model which was considered by previous schol-ars as a highly effective model in this era (Abu-Tineh, Khasawneh, and Al-Omari2008; Taylor 2002). There are five leadership strategies identified through theresearch of Kouzes and Posner (2002), which are deemed significant in creatingeffective leadership behaviour. The following list expands upon these behaviours:

Challenging the process: Leaders search for opportunities to improve the sta-tus quo of the organization through innovative strategies. In doing so, leadersare always experimenting and taking risks. Academic leaders know that risk-taking involves mistakes and failures, and accept the inevitable disappoint-ments as learning opportunities.

Inspiring a shared vision: Academic leaders passionately believe that they canmake a difference. They envision the future which interns create as an idealand unique image of what the organisation can become. Through their magne-tism and quiet persuasion, leaders enlist others in their dreams. They breathelife into their visions and get people to see exciting possibilities for the future.

Enabling others to act: Academic leaders foster collaboration and build spir-ited teams and become actively involved with others. They also understandthat mutual respect can sustain extraordinary efforts; they strive to create anatmosphere of trust and human dignity. In another situation, organisationalleaders also try to strengthen followers by making each person feel capableand powerful.

Educational Studies 475

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Modelling the way: Academic leaders are able to establish principles concern-ing the way people should be treated and the way goals should be pursued.Leaders also create standards of excellence and then set an example for othersto follow.

Encouraging the heart: Academic leaders accomplishing extraordinary thingsin organisations through hard work. To keep motivation alive, academic lead-ers recognise the contributions that individuals make. In every winning team,the members and leaders need to share in the rewards of their efforts, so lead-ers can celebrate accomplishments.

Relevant literature of transformational leadership indicated that the Kouzes andPosners transformational leadership model was widely used in examining the lead-ership behaviours in the higher educational context in western countries. However,this model wasnt popularly used by local researchers, especially in the higher edu-cational context.

The core theory for this study was based on Mowday, Steers and Porters theoryof organisational commitment. The selection of this theory was based on three fac-tors: (a) it provides for a study of organisational commitment that can be conven-tionalised and accepted (Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1982); (b) it covers attitudinalcommitment (Allen and Meyer 1996; Dunham, Grube, and Castaneda 1994;Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1982); and (c) it provides a measure for commitmentusing the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Porter, and Steers1982) which consisted of three major elements which were (a) high belief in andacceptance of organisational goals and values, (b) subordinates willingness toprovide extra effort to the organisation and lastly, (c) desire to stay and maintainmembership of the organisation.

3. Literature review

3.1. Universities heads of department as transformational leaders

Previous studies have identified that leadership factors are imperative antecedents oforganisational commitment among workers, especially academics. In universitiesand the higher educational context generally, the department heads or the academicadministrators were considered as transformational leaders who created positive aca-demic environments and led the faculty members to foster collective growth amongacademics (Quinn and Chandan 2012). Yielder and Codling (2004) postulated thatthe practice of transformational leadership among department chairs has the abilityto support their faculty members in achieving the universitys goals and vision. Withthe heads of department as the transformational leaders, we constructed the assump-tion that heads of department have demonstrated their transformational leadershipduties by displaying effective role modelling to their academics, providing supportand encouragement, communicating by using compelling visions and producing sus-tainable values and significant change in the higher educational context (Amey2006; Grafton 2009; Hamidifar, Vinitwatanakhun, and Rahnamay Roodposhti 2013;Solis, Kupczynski, and Mundy 2011). As academic leaders, they also performed therole of visionary leaders (Yukl 2006) who think of the future of their departmentand show concern with and have high empathy with their academic staff.

476 L. Tahir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Empirically, a local study conducted in Malaysian universities by Sadeghi andZaidatol Akmaliah (2012) reported that academic administrators such as the headsof department have demonstrated the combination process of transformational, trans-actional and laissez-faire leadership when leading the research universities. It can beinferred that the research universities heads of departments exhibited appropriateleadership styles in directing their academic departments to achieve organisationalgoals. Graftons study (2009) of presidential transformational leadership of commu-nity colleges showed that faculty and staff members rated their community collegepresidents as transformational leaders, based on their abilities in the leadership prac-tices. In Taiwan, Chen (2004) examined the faculty members perceptions of theleadership practices of the deans and their directors. The study revealed thatTaiwanese nursing colleges deans and directors have performed their transforma-tional leadership behaviours in leading the colleges. As transformational leaders in ahigher educational setting, they were reported to have provided support and consid-eration towards their academic staff, showed empathy towards the academics needsand encouraged open communication, especially related to academics expression ofnew ideas. Rozeboom (2008) conducted a study based on the self-assessment of 338chief student affairs officers in selected institutions of higher learning. This showedthat enabling others to act was the most frequent response by the chief student offi-cers, followed by modelling the way. The findings revealed that chief officers treatedtheir subordinates with dignity and respect, with promises and commitment. At thesame time, they also portrayed themselves as significant role models to their subor-dinates in decision-making processes. They also praised their subordinates foraccomplishing tasks assigned.

In 2012, Quinn and Chandan reported that department chairs at the historicaluniversity located in the state of Mississippi practised the encouraging the heart,modelling the way and challenging the process transformational leadership behav-iours as the most frequent leadership practices while leading their owned academicdepartment. Another study by Kowalewski (2005) also explored the transformationalleadership practices by 235 deans of dental schools. The findings revealed that thetransformational leadership behaviour which consisted of enabling others to act andto encourage the heart were identified as the most frequent leadership practices usedby the dental school deans. Therefore, we postulated that academic staffs perceivedtheir academic administrators as effective transformational leaders.

3.2. Organisational commitment among the academics

Organisational commitment has been integral to organisational research for over 25years (Gautam, Van Dick, and Wagner 2004, Tella, Ayeni, and Popoola 2007). Inthe late 1970s, a simple definition of organisational commitment was developed inthe late 1970s by Steers (1977) who gave organisational commitment as the relativestrength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particularorganisation.

Theoretically, the overall performance of an institution of higher educationdepends upon its academic staff and their degree of organisational commitment andsatisfaction, which later was considered as crucial towards enhancement of teachingand learning, supervision tasks and research (Khan et al. 2013; Norshidah 2012).Therefore, retaining the productive academics should be of priority to the organisa-tion and the university as the learning institution that produces human manpower to

Educational Studies 477

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

the nations development. Relevant studies also revealed that there was a lower levelof absenteeism and turnover among academics that had a high level of commitment.The topic of organisational commitment among academics has received extensiveattention from previous higher educational scholars. Earlier studies also revealed thatacademics have a strong attachment to their universities and are willing to stay withthe organisation for a longer period of time (Adegue 2012; Ksk 2003; Tolentino2013; Yousaf 2010). However, little research done in South-East Asia higher educa-tional institutions has been devoted to examine the organisational commitment inacademics (Afzaal and Taha 2013) and very few studies are relevant or specific tothe Malaysian context (Khadijah 2009).

The construct of organisational commitment which was conducted locally alsorevealed that academics in Malaysia reported high-to-moderate level of commitmenttowards their attachment to universities or Higher Education Institiutions that theyworked with (Choong 2012; Fauziah and Kamaruzaman 2008; Norizan 2012;Normala 2010; Zainuddin and Junaidah 2010). Surprisingly, an abundance of studiesthat measured the level of organisational commitment in Malaysian educators focuson the organisational commitment of school teachers, but little attention was shownto measuring the academic staffs organisational commitment in higher educationalinstitiutions (HEI) settings. Significantly, this study tries to investigate the level oforganisational commitment of academic staff in public universities. Therefore, in thisstudy, we assumed that organisational commitment among the academics has a sig-nificantly positive relationship with their performance (Riketta 2002). However,most of the studies quoted above that examined the organisational commitment levelamong academic staffs in local scene were based on evaluations of small clusters ofacademic staff; this doesnt represent the whole population of the academic staff inMalaysia. Therefore, this study is an attempt to fill the gap in measuring the overalllevel of organisational commitment among Malaysian academics, using samples andpopulations representing academics from all available public universities in Malaysiawhich were neglected in previous studies. In this study, the academic staffs organi-sational commitment framework is conceptualised as a state in which academic staffidentifies with a particular organisation and its goals, and wish to maintain member-ship in order to facilitate those goals (Certin 2006).

3.3. Demographic variables as the mediator to organisational commitment

Numerous studies show that demographic variables such as years of service withorganisation, age and gender have a significant impact on organisational commit-ment (Brimeyer, Perrucci, and Wadsworth 2010; Chen and Francesco 2000; Lok andCrawford 2004; Madsen, Miller, and John 2005). However, there are few studiesthat measured demographic variables as a mediator for the organisational commit-ment linking the transformational leadership from the higher educational perspec-tives. Therefore, it is interesting to examine whether the demographic variables ofthe academics play the role of significant mediator to the academics organisationalcommitment in Malaysian public universities. Based on the past literature studied,we limited our concentration of the demographic variables into three main variableswhich were: age, years of service and gender. Bashir et al. (2011) revealed that thegender of academics in Pakistani public universities is a significant moderator to theorganisational commitment as perceived by 616 academicians from 22 universities.The findings show that male academics have a higher commitment than their female

478 L. Tahir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

counterpart when related to job issues in universities. Later, Tabbodi (2009) exam-ined the effect of leadership behaviour on the commitment of humanities depart-ments in the University of Mysore, India. Data were collected from 93 facultymembers. His study proved that there is a positive relationship between commitmentbehaviour and the two variables of age and gender among the academics. In thisstudy, women showed a degree of commitment higher than men. It also showed thatyoung academics have a much higher commitment than senior academics. In Ethio-pia, a study conducted by Semela (2004) highlighted that demographic factors suchas gender, age and years of service were not as significant as workplace factors; thelatter were a major factor when it came to intending or not intending to leave theuniversity. The results also indicated that organizational commitment was expectedto be significantly influenced by salary adequacy and perceived leadership qualityusing the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

Moreover, Khan et al. (2013) also studied the impact of demographic variablessuch as gender, age, domicile and marital status among 312 university (includingboth public and private) teachers from Pakistan. Results indicated that gender, mari-tal status and domicile of the faculty members cause a variance in the commitmentlevel of the academics. On the other hand, age is not a good predictor and does notcause significant variance in the commitment. In Thomas (2006) study, he measuredthe predictors from the demographical factors to the organisational commitment offour evangelical higher education institutions. Results from the regression analysisyielded two substantial predictors of organisational commitment among academicsin Christian-based higher education institutions: age and years of organisational ser-vice. The findings showed that as academics age decreased and tenure increased,their commitment decreased. It implies that senior academicians have a higher levelof commitment to their universities compared to their younger counterpart. How-ever, the senior academicians levels of commitment can decrease if they stay work-ing with the universities for a longer period of time. In Stonestreets (2001) study, astatistically significant relationship was found between organisational commitmentand all five types of transformational leadership behaviours, with gender as a moder-ating variable. The regression analysis findings on the moderating effects of age alsoshowed that age did not influence the relationship between leadership practices bythe universitys academic chairpersons and academics work outcomes.

3.4. Linking transformational leadership and organisational commitment

Previous studies in the local context pointed out that transformational leadershipbehaviours such as the abilities to delegate tasks, and sharing visions and valueswere among the major determinants of the subordinates organisational commitment(Lee and Kamarul Zaman 2009; Lo, Ramayah, and Min 2009; Lo et al. 2010). Theirfindings proved that one such factor considered to be an imperative determinant oforganisational commitment is transformational leadership (Allen and Meyer 1996;Azman et al. 2011; Khasawneh, Omari, and Abu-Tineh 2012). However, limitedresearch on leadership and organisational commitment had been done in Malaysia,particularly in higher education settings (Rusliza, Chek, and Samsudin 2013). Subse-quently, studies in non-western higher educational settings have found that transfor-mational leadership behaviour of academic administrators has a significant positiverelationship with the level of organizational commitment among the academics. Forinstance, higher education leadership researchers such as Rehman et al. (2012) and

Educational Studies 479

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Aamir Ali and Sohail (2006) in Pakistan, Sameh (2011) in Yemen; Kamal (2013) inIran, and Teshome (2011) in Ethopia, who studied the linkages between transforma-tional leadership among the administrators with the academics level of organisa-tional commitment, firmly concluded that transformational leadership practice by theacademic administrators has a positive significant relationship with dimensions oforganisational commitment among the academic staffs.

In measuring the influences of transformational leadership on organisationalcommitment in higher educational settings, Lutons (2010) study, which measuresthe universitys dean leadership with academic staffs organisational commitment,indicates that the leadership style of the faculty dean, as reported by faculty mem-bers, had a significant impact on the level of organisational commitment those fac-ulty members expressed. In the local context, Norshidahs (2012) study was basedon the perception of 168 academics, revealing that there is a significant relationshipbetween organisational commitment and leadership behaviour of department heads.In summary, she concluded that academics transformational leaders who practisechallenging the process leadership behaviour are committed to experimenting andtaking risks, and willing to learn from mistakes. This implies that developing andcommunicating a shared vision can lead to a feeling of commitment to the organisa-tion. Rusliza, Chek, and Samsudins study (2013) clearly demonstrated that transfor-mational leadership among the universitys administrators was positively correlatedwith the organisational commitment of the academic staff. She believed that the uni-versitys administrator should play an active role in transforming the vision of theuniversity in order to gain high commitment among the academics.

In another study conducted in India, Tabbodi (2009) revealed that the leadershipbehaviour of the universitys administrator affects, directly or indirectly, organisa-tional commitment as well as academics behaviour. Although transformational lead-ership has been empirically linked to organisational commitment in other relateddeveloping countries, there has been little empirical research focusing on the pro-cesses by which transformational leaders influence academics level of organisa-tional commitment (Avolio et al. 2004) in the higher educational context, especiallyin Malaysian public universities. Therefore, questions about what really motivatescommitment among the academics remain unanswered, especially regarding theleadership behaviours of the heads of department as the antecedent for academicsorganisational commitment (Khadijah 2009; Raemah 2010). Most studies in theMalaysian context largely examined the relationship between transformational lead-ership practices in the school-based context, and surprisingly, the linking process ofboth variables was largely neglected, especially the level of organisational commit-ment among academic staffs which was underexplored and unclear. Therefore, weexamined whether academic transformational leaders have strong influences on thelevel of organisational commitment amongst the academic staffs.

4. Research methodology

4.1. Sample

A multistage cluster sampling technique was employed to obtain the desired samplesize from the target groups and research sites. This consisted of three importantstages. In Stage 1, 18 public universities in Malaysia were selected at the time thisresearch was conducted (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia 2006). They are

480 L. Tahir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

located all over the country, with a total of 20,989 academic staff. In Stage 2, theresearcher clustered the 18 public universities in Malaysia into four zones based ontheir geographical location, namely the northern zone (four universities), the centralzone (six universities), the southern zone (four universities), and the eastern zoneand East Malaysia zone (five universities). In Stage 3, one university was randomlyselected from each zone, except for the central zone, where two universities wererandomly selected as there were more universities in that particular zone. Next, theresearcher assigned a consecutive number from one to the required number for allthe selected universities. An arbitrary number was selected from the table of randomnumbers (Gay and Airasian 2000) and the last four digits were recorded. The num-bers that corresponded to the number assigned to the universities were selected untilfive universities had been selected for the sample. The rationale of giving the con-secutive number to the universities is to decrease the bias in the selection process ofthe universities. All universities had the possibility of selection, regardless their sta-tus as research, focus or comprehensive universities. In Stage 4, after the universitieswere selected, the next process was the identification of the academic staff thatinvolved in the study.

Through the random selection process, a sample of 500 academic staff wasselected and contacted using their universities official emails at least 2% from thetotal population of the academics staff were selected for each zone (Gay andAirasian 2000). Hence, 322 academic staff from the central zone, 80 academic stafffrom the southern zone, 97 academic staff from the northern zone and 73 academicstaff from the East of Malaysia zone were selected. The categories of staff selectedranged from professor, associate professor, senior lecturers, lecturers and tutors. Of500 questionnaires sent, only 450 were returned, of which 430 questionnaires wereuseable for data analysis. This yielded a return rate of 86% from the overall sampleof 500 academic staff.

4.2. Instrumentation

Kouzes and Posners Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) was administered to mea-sure the academics perceptions of department heads leadership behaviours includ-ing challenging the process, inspiring shared vision, enabling others to act,modelling the way and encouraging the heart. The original questionnaire utilises aseven-point scale, with the higher values representing greater use of leadershipbehaviours (Kouzes and Posner 1993). In this study, the researcher modified theresponses to a five-point ordinal scale which were: 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Sel-dom, 3 = Occasionally, 4 = Fairly Often and 5 = Very Frequently to definewhat most accurately described respondents perceptions of department headsleadership behaviours. There was a total of 30 items in the questionnaire.

Next, the organisational commitment is conceptualised and defined as a state inwhich a member of staff identifies with a particular organisation and its goals, andwishes to maintain membership in order to facilitate those goals (Certin 2006; Karrasch2003; Malhorta and Mukherjee 2004). This study used the 15-item OrganisationalCommitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter, Steers, and Mowday (1974),and has three components: belief and acceptance of organisational goals and values;willingness to exert effort for the organisation; and a desire to maintain membership inthe organisation. All items are on a Likert five-point scale in which 1 = StronglyDisagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree.

Educational Studies 481

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

4.3. Reliability and factor analysis

The reliability of the instruments was estimated from the data collected by calculat-ing Cronbachs alpha with 30 academic staff from one of the universities in thesouth region. Nunnally (1994) recommends that a reliability coefficient of .70 orhigher is considered acceptable value in most social science research situations.From the pilot test, it was found that all the instruments appeared to be stable withalpha value of 0.92 for the overall measure of transformational leadership behaviourwith challenging the process (0.81); inspiring the vision (0.70); enabling others toact (0.70); modelling the way (0.81) and finally encouraging the heart (0.79). In thisstudy, Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient for organisational commitment wasfound to be 0.92, and the values of each construct of the OCQ were: belief andacceptance of organisational goals and values (0.70); willingness to exert effort forthe organisation (0.75); and a desire to maintain membership in the organisation(0.82).

Further, Bartletts Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Mea-sure of Sampling Adequacy were employed to determine the sufficiency of the sam-ple size and correlation matrix before analysing the data. The KMO index forsampling adequacy was at 0.89, while Bartletts test of Sphericity was significant,2 = 2313.89, p < .0001, indicating that the sample and correlation matrixes wereappropriate for analysis (Field 2005). Exploratory factor analyses supported theunderlying conceptual framework which revealed that the LPI consists of five fac-tors, and the items within each factor correspond more among themselves than theydo with the other factors. Five factors were extracted and accounted for 60.6% ofthe variance. The retest reliability of at least 0.93 in internal consistency was foundin all the five leadership practices (Kouzes and Posner 2001). The exploratory factoranalysis for organisational commitment also supported the conceptual frameworkwhich accounted of 71.3% account of variances. The item loading ranged from 0.63to 0.87, which indicates acceptable values, and both instruments exhibit satisfactoryconstruct validity (Bryman 2012; Dewberry 2004).

In addition, a measurement model that represents the LPI and OCQ throughConfirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on all of the constructs usingmaximum likelihood technique (Brown 2006) to determine the factor structure. Thefit indices of the hierarchical CFA for LPI instrument yielded from the model mea-sures normed chi-square values [3.166]; CFI [0.922], NFI = [0.915], RFI [0.811] andRMSEA [0.029]. For OCQ, the fit indices of the hierarchical CFA yielded from themeasurement model indicates more norms chi-square values [6.147]; CFI [0.952],NFI = [0.821], RFI [0.819] and RMSEA [0.027]. All fit indices were more than ade-quate to conclude that that the model fits the data.

4.4. Multicollinearity

Pallant (2007) noted that the existence of multicollinearity did not contribute to agood regression model. Therefore, multicollinearity procedure should be tested beforeperforming the regression analysis. In order to determine the existence of multicollin-earity, zero-order correlation matrix was performed to determine whether there wereany significant relationships between organisational commitment and transforma-tional leadership of heads of department. Table 1 reveals that encouraging the heartleadership behaviour correlated the highest in magnitude with organisational

482 L. Tahir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

commitment (0.65), followed by inspiring a shared vision (0.62), modelling the way(0.59), challenging the process (0.55) and enabling others to act (0.55). Based on thevalues observed, the first three leadership behaviours could be treated as factorswhich were more related to organisational commitment. Based on the correlationvalues, we presumed that no collinearity was detected, suggesting that all variablescould be treated as independent in this study.

4.5. Data analysis

Inferential and descriptive statistics were employed in data analysis and testing ofthe hypotheses. The frequency and percentage tables were used to present the demo-graphic variables of the respondents of the study, which consisted of academic staff.A standard regression was utilised to analyse the relationship between departmentheads transformational leadership (independent variable) and academic staffsorganisational commitment (dependent variable), based on the assumption that bothvariables are on a continuous scale as emphasised by Howitt and Cramer (2010). Inaddition, hierarchical regression is employed to evaluate the relationship between aset of independent variables and the dependent variable, controlling for or takinginto account the moderator impact and interaction of the correlation betweenindependent variables on the dependent variable. Cramer (2003) suggests thathierarchical regression is the best testing approach to measure the demographic

Table 1. The zero-order correlation matrix of the alpha values of the variables.

Variables Alpha values 1 2 3 4 5 6

Organisational commitment 0.92 0.63* 0.55* 0.62* 0.55* 0.59* 0.65*

Challenging the process 0.81 0.71* 0.46* 0.58* 0.57*

Inspiring a shared vision 0.70 0.53* 0.63* 0.73*

Enabling others to act 0.70 0.61* 0.55*

Modelling the way 0.81 0.68*

Encouraging the heart 0.79

*p < 0.05.

Table 2. Analysis of the respondents according to demographic variables.

Variable Frequency (%)

GenderMale 225 52.3Female 205 47.7

UniversityNorth zone 115 26.6Central zone 165 38.4South zone 97 22.6East zone 53 12.3

AgeYounger than 45 313 72.845 and older 117 27.2

Years of serviceLess than 10 years 248 57.710 Years and more 182 42.3

Educational Studies 483

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

effect as the moderator between two continuous variables that were correlated. Inthis study, an examination of the moderating effects of demographic variables (gen-der, age and years of service) on the relationship between the department headstransformational leadership practices and organisational commitment was performed.In analysing the moderator impact on leadership behaviours towards the academicstaffs organisational commitment, the demographic variables (age, gender and yearsof service) were entered at different blocks separately during the regression analysisprocedure.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive analyses of academics demographic variables

The demographic variables were analysed based on three indicators gender, ageand years of service. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the demographic variables ofthe respondents in percentage form. Due to the nature of random sampling, almostequal numbers of gender among academic staff were obtained, with 225 (52.3%)male and 205 (47.7%) female academics. Close to 40% of the academics were fromthe central zone, while more than 70% were below 45 years of age. Meanwhile,approximately 60% of them had had less than 10 years of service. The profiledepicted demonstrates a true representation of the population of this study, as theacademics represent a stratified sample of each chosen stratum.

In order to determine whether academic staff perceived their head of departmentas a transformational leader in a higher educational setting, descriptive analyses wereconducted. Based on Table 3, the individual item mean score of transformationalleadership behaviours were first transformed into total mean scores. The descriptiveanalysis for the transformational leadership behaviours showed that the total meanscore was 3.34 (SD = 0.40). Therefore, we anticipated that academic staffs perceivedtheir head of department as a transformation leader while leading the facultysacademic departments. Table 3 also portrays that challenging the process (M = 3.43,SD = 0.59) has the highest mean, followed by encouraging the heart (M = 3.42,SD = 0.55), modelling the way (M = 3.33, SD = 0.45), inspiring a shared vision(M = 3.26, SD = 0.43) and lastly enabling others to act (M = 3.20, SD = 0.42).

Further, we analysed the overall level of organisational commitment amongacademic staff from respondents representing the 13 public universities in Malaysia.Table 3 also illustrates the mean score for organisational commitment among publicuniversities academic staff which were indicated at 3.53 (SD = 0.66), which wasconsidered as high. Therefore, we assumed that academic staffs in public universitieshave a high level of commitment to their higher education institutions.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of the transformational leadership andorganisational commitment.

Mean SD

Challenging the process 3.43 0.59Inspiring a shared vision 3.26 0.43Enabling others to act 3.20 0.42Modelling the way 3.33 0.45Encouraging the heart 3.42 0.55Organisational commitment 3.53 0.66

484 L. Tahir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

5.2. Regression analysis of the academics organisational commitment

In order to evaluate the main predictor for academic staffs organisational commit-ment, a multiple regression equation, together with the evaluation of the significanceof the unstandardised regression coefficients (B) and standardised regression coeffi-cients or beta weights () of the independent variables obtained for organisationalcommitment was presented.

Regression analysis was performed to predict whether department heads trans-formational leadership behaviours have influence in academics organisational com-mitment. From Table 4 above, all five transformational leadership behaviours wereselected as independent variables, while the academics organisational commitmentwas the dependent variable. From Table 4, the regression model explained 55% ofthe total variance of department heads transformational leadership to the academicsorganisational commitment (R2 = 0.552; F = 90.58; p < 0.05). Table 4 also illustratesthat all five department heads transformational leadership have influence in theorganisational commitment among the academics. However, the strongest predictorswere from the encouraging the heart (beta coefficient = 0.34; t = 5.23) and enablingothers to act (beta coefficient = 0.30; t = 4.36) even though enabling others to actwas ranked last based on the most frequently used leadership behaviour by depart-ment heads. In addition, the other three department heads transformational leader-ship also have influenced which were challenging the process (beta coefficient =0.15; t = 2.68); inspiring the vision (beta coefficient = 0.22; t = 2.43) and modellingthe way (beta coefficient = 0.16; t = 2.17). This unique finding implies that the twotransformational leadership behaviours are highly predictive of organisationalcommitment among academic staff in Malaysian public universities.

5.3. Moderating effect analyses

In order to answer the last research question, which examined the moderating effectsof demographic variables (gender, age and years of service) between academicstaffs perceptions of the department heads transformational leadership behaviourswith their commitment, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were performedin Table 5. Before the hierarchical analyses were conducted, the moderator wasdummy coded with 0 and 1. In order to test the interaction effects, interaction termswere created by multiplying the two new variables, that is, dummy coded gender,age and years of service with the centred transformational leadership behaviours.

Specifically, the procedure for testing the moderating effects of gender on theboth variables was to enter predictors (transformational leadership behaviours) in

Table 4. Regression coefficients of predictors for organisational commitment.

Predictors B SE t p

Challenging the process 0.13 0.15* 0.06 2.68 .008Inspiring a shared vision 0.14 0.22* 0.09 2.43 .015Enabling others to act 0.19 0.30* 0.07 4.36 .000Modelling the way 0.11 0.16* 0.08 2.17 .031Encouraging the heart 0.29 0.34* 0.07 5.23 .000Adjusted R2 = 0.552; R = 0.72; F = 90.58; p < 0.05

*p < 0.05.

Educational Studies 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

44 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table

5.Hierarchicalregression

analysisformoderatingeffectsof

gender,ageandyearsof

serviceon

departmentheads

transformationalleadership

with

academ

ics

organisatio

nalcommitm

ent.

Variable

Years

ofservice

Age

Gender

BSE

R

Total

R2

R2

BSE

R

Total

R2

R2

BSE

R

Total

R2

R2

Model

11.154

0.057

0.701

0.701

0.491

0.49

1.15

0.057

0.701

0.701

0.491

0.49

1.15

0.057

0.701

0.701

0.491

0.49

Model

2(A

ge,yearsof

serviceandgender)

0.072

0.046

0.054

0.703

0.494

0.003

0.058

0.051

0.039

0.702

0.491

0.002

0.019

0.046

0.014

0.701

0.491

0.00

Mod

el3

0.015

0.118

0.006

0.703

0.494

0.000

0.011

0.130

0.003

0.702

0.492

0.000

0.126

0.114

0.055

0.702

493

0.001

Note:

B:Unstand

ardisedregression

coefficients;:

Betaweigh

ts;SE:Stand

ardError.

**p